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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 recites “said front face comprises a textured surface configured to grip objects placed atop said front face”. However, a textured surface on the front face (4, 104) of the clipboard system (2, 102) is nowhere shown in the drawings, nor mentioned in the written description. The front face (4, 104) is indeed shown in the drawings, but there is no indication in any of the figures that this front face is textured. And in the written description, the only mention of a “textured surface” appears in par. 28, which states that the space (144) within the clipboard system (102) of the embodiment shown in Figs. 11-12 “could have . . . a textured surface for gripping”. However, the written description never mentions the inclusion of such a textured surface on the front face (4, 104) of either embodiment (2, 102) of the clipboard system. Nor is the inclusion of such a textured surface necessarily implied by any part of the original disclosure. Hence, the aforementioned limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (4404915) in view of Brinker (2334380), Hurley (20200154877), & Tobias (2833608).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a system comprising a base (12, 16, 18, 20, 22) having a front face (14), a rear face (26), a top end (20), a bottom end (22), and a first side (16) and a second side (18); and support means (36, 48) comprising a first leg (one of 36), a second leg (other of 36), and a third leg (48), each pivotally connected to said rear face and each comprising a proximal end (i.e., ends of 36 & 48 proximate 38 & 50, respectively) and a distal end (i.e., ends of 36 & 48 distal from 38 & 50, respectively); said first leg proximal end connected to said rear face at a corner formed by said top end (20) and said first side (16); said second leg proximal end connected to said rear face at a corner formed by said top end (20) and said second side (18); said third leg proximal end connected to said rear face at a mid-point (Fig. 2) along said bottom end (22); wherein said third leg (48) is oriented in a parallel orientation with respect said first and second sides of said base when the system is placed in said first, stored and portable orientation (Fig. 2). Simpson fail(s) to teach a clip; telescoping legs; or receivers.
However, Brinker teaches connecting a clip (4) to a front face (Figs. 1-2) of a base (1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a clip, as taught by Brinker, to the base of Simpson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to retain paper upon the base for display, writing, or marking (as suggested by col. 1, lines 3-6 of Brinker).
Additionally, Hurley teaches support means (1150A, 1150B, 1156A, 1156B, 1190, 1192) comprising a first telescoping leg (1150A - see par. 180), a second telescoping leg (1150B - see par. 180), and a third telescoping leg (1190 - see par. 180), each pivotally connected to a rear face and each comprising a proximal end (i.e., ends of 1150A, 1150B, & 1190 proximate 1156A, 1156B, & 1192 - see Fig. 31) and a distal end (i.e., ends of 1150A, 1150B, & 1190 distal from 1156A, 1156B, & 1192 - see Fig. 31); said first telescoping leg proximal end connected to said rear face at a corner formed by a top end and a first side (Fig. 31); said second telescoping leg proximal end connected to said rear face at a corner formed by said top end and a second side (Fig. 31); said third telescoping leg proximal end connected to a rear face at a mid-point along a bottom end (Fig. 31); wherein said third telescoping leg (1190) is oriented in a parallel orientation with respect said first and second sides of said base when the system is placed in said first, stored and portable orientation (Fig. 64); wherein said first (1150A) and second (1150B) telescoping legs are oriented at an angle from their respective corners toward a centerline of said base when the system is placed in said first, stored and portable orientation (Fig. 64). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute support means, as taught by Hurley, for the support means of Simpson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the height of the system to be adjusted (as suggested by Figs. 62-63 & par. 180 of Simpson).
Additionally, Tobias teaches receivers (21) for legs (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add receivers, as taught by Tobias, to the system of Simpson as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to selectively retain the legs in the folded position, thereby preventing accidental unfolding (as suggested by col. 2, lines 4-9 & 60-62 of Tobias).
Hence, Simpson as modified would teach a clipboard system comprising first, second, & third receivers (21 of Tobias) within said rear face (26 of Simspon) each configured to receive and store the respective first telescoping leg (1150A of Hurley), second telescoping leg (1150B of Hurley), and third telescoping leg (1190 of Hurley) when the system is placed in a first, stored and portable orientation (implied by Fig. 64 of Hurley & Fig. 1 of Tobias); each of said first telescoping leg, said second telescoping leg, and said third telescoping leg further configured to pivot out from their respective first, second, and third receivers, and to telescope to an extended position wherein the distal end of each respective first, second, and third telescoping legs are placed against a floor (as in Figs. 51 & 62-64 of Hurley), thereby transforming said clipboard system into a second, deployed tri-pod orientation whereby said front face is elevated away from said floor (implied by Fig. 1 of Simpson & Fig. 51 of Hurley). Since the clipboard system of Simpson as modified would have three legs (1150A, 1150B, 1190 of Hurley) that, when extended, would have the same length (as in Fig. 51 of Hurley), said clipboard system would therefore be capable of assuming a free-standing position (as implied by Fig. 51 of Hurley), and would thus be freely and selectively movable within a space (since it could be stand levelly in any portion of the space with a large enough horizontal surface).
Regarding claim 2, Simpson teaches a base (12, 16, 18, 20, 22) comprising a top portion (12) configured to fit against a bottom portion (16, 18, 20, 22); said bottom portion comprising a space (i.e., volume containing 32) configured for receiving items (e.g., drawer 32, or an item smaller than said drawer); said top portion being attached to said bottom portion by unspecified attaching means. Simpson as modified fail(s) to teach making a top portion selectively removable. However, Tobias further teaches reversible attaching means (13 & 24, which are screws - see Fig. 5 & col. 1, line 58) for attaching one component (12, 22) to another component (10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute reversible attaching means, as taught by Tobias, for the attaching means of Simpson as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to facilitate repair & replacement of the top portion. It is noted that screws are inherently reversible. Hence, in Simpson as modified, the use of screws (13 & 24 of Tobias) to reversibly attach the top portion (12 of Simpson) to the bottom portion (16, 18, 20, 22 of Simpson) would make said top portion selectively removable from the said bottom portion, and would allow said top portion to securely close said space (i.e., volume containing 32 of Simpson) when said top portion is placed over said bottom portion (as in Fig. 3 of Simpson).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (4404915), Brinker (2334380), Hurley (20200154877), & Tobias (2833608) in view of Hames (5451025). Simpson as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a front face (14 of Simpson); but fail(s) to teach a textured surface. However, Hames teaches the inclusion, on a front face (Figs. 1-3), of a textured surface (46 - see cl. 9 & col. 4, lines 16-18) configured to grip objects (70) placed atop said front face when a system is in a second, deployed orientation (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a textured surface, as taught by Hames, to the front face of Simpson as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to aid in securing & retaining documents thereupon (as suggested by cl. 9 & col. 4, lines 16-18 of Hames). Hence, Simpson as modified would teach a front face (14 of Simpson) that comprises a textured surface (46 of Hames) configured to grip objects placed atop said front face (as in Figs. 2-3 of Hames) when the system is in said second, deployed tri-pod orientation (as in par. 10 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument based upon the age of the references (Remarks at 4), contentions that the reference patents are old are not impressive absent a showing that the art tried and failed to solve the same problem notwithstanding its presumed knowledge of the references. See MPEP 2145(VIII).
Applicant also contends that “the Tobias reference itself appears to provide a solution for an entirely different set of problems than is solved by the present invention or by Simpson and/or Brinker” (Remarks at 4). In response to applicant's apparent argument that Tobias is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. In this case, Tobias teaches a table (10) with adjustable legs (15). Tobias is therefore within applicant’s field of endeavor (i.e., tables and furniture - see par. 3 of the written description of the instant application), and reasonably pertinent to the particular problems with which the inventor was concerned (i.e., provision of a horizontal support surface where ordinary furniture is unavailable (see par. 3 of the written description of the instant application); and adjustment of the length or height of a table leg (see par. 26 of the written description of the instant application). And the “set of problems . . . by Simpson and/or Brinker” is not germane to whether Tobias is analogous art. Applicant’s argument is therefore unconvincing.
Applicant’s argument that Tobias and Simpson fail to teach a “stable, tri-pod configuration” (Remarks at 4-5), this is essentially an argument against these references individually. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Moreover, as explained in par. 10 above, Simpson as modified would indeed teach a configuration “wherein the distal end of each respective first, second, and third telescoping legs are placed against a floor, thereby transforming said clipboard system into a second, deployed tri-pod orientation”, as required by claim 1.
The Declaration of Daniel Graham [hereinafter “Declaration”] under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 7/7/25 is insufficient to overcome the prior art rejections of claims 1-3 set forth both above and in the last Office because:
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function (see par. 1 of the Declaration). This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof.
It states that the claimed subject matter solved a problem that was long standing in the art (see par. 2 of the Declaration). However, there is no showing that others of ordinary skill in the art were working on the problem and if so, for how long. In addition, there is no evidence that if persons skilled in the art who were presumably working on the problem knew of the teachings of the above cited references, they would still be unable to solve the problem.
It appears to be directed towards matters of opinion rather than showings of objective evidence. See par. 3 of the Declaration.
It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the affiant has never seen the claimed subject matter before (see par. 4 of the Declaration). This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637