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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final action for application #18/371466, Support Apparatus, filed 9/22/2023. Claims 1-9 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 1/12/26. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they are replete with errors. The Applicant is required to review the drawings in their entirety and amend the drawings accordingly. The Examiner notes that each figure does not need to have every reference numeral disclosed. While each numeral disclosed in the specification is required to be in the figures, using all of the numerals in each figure makes it difficult to see specific elements and crowds the figures. For example, in figures 15-22, which shows a wristwatch in combination with the apparatus and clip, since the apparatus has already been defined in the previous figures, it is unnecessary to include every numeral for the apparatus once again. Only those numerals that help in the understanding of the invention should be used.
It is the burden of the Applicant to ensure that the drawings are accurate. Examples of errors throughout the drawings include (but not limited to):
-In Figures 1 and 22, numeral “220” is pointing to the same general area as the distal end portion 180. However, in Figure 3, “220” is pointing to the free end. Since numeral 220 is defining a cantilever end, Figure 3 makes sense. Therefore Figures 1 and 22 should be amended.
-In Figures 1 and 2, numeral “225” is used to represent a suspension over the base 130. However, the arrow suggests movement rather than suspension and does not help clarify the invention. A “suspension” of one element over another should not have a reference numeral unless the numeral is defining a distance. Therefore, numeral “225” and its arrow should be deleted from the figures and from the specification.
-In Figures 2 and 3, numeral “205” is redundant since the elements were already disclosed as flexibly connected at intersection point 215. Therefore, “205” should be deleted from all figures and the specification.
-In Figures 1-4 and 6, numeral “270” is redundant since the elements were already disclosed as flexibly connected at interface 275. Therefore, “270” should be deleted from all figures and the specification.
-In the figures, numeral “280” is supposed to be representing a “dual-radii arc”. However, “280” is pointing to a radii, NOT an arc.
-Numeral “280” and “290” are pointing to the same arrow.
-A “radius” is a dimension (a length). Therefore, it is not clear why a primary radius “290” is defined as having a primary radius length “295”, or why secondary radius “320” is defined as having a secondary radius length “325”. This complicates the drawings unnecessarily and is redundant. Therefore, the radius lengths should be deleted from the figures and specification.
-Numeral “285” is in the figures but deleted from the specification (although not entered).
-In the original figures (see Figure 3), there was a primary origin “300” and a secondary origin “330” that defined the center of each of the arcs. However, in the amended drawings (see Figures 1 and 3), these origins have moved locations. There is support in the specification for the new location of the primary origin “300”. Figure 2 still has the original location so this needs to be amended. However, moving the location of secondary origin “330”, and arrows for “320” and “325”, does NOT have support in the original specification and therefore changes the invention and introduces new matter.
-Numeral “315” is defined as the primary arc. However, by viewing the figures, numeral “315” is pointing to a radius and NOT to an arc. An arc has a curvature. This leads to confusion of the figures. This radius line should be removed from the figures and the primary arc of the flexible extension element should be appropriately identified.
-Numeral “311” was added to the figures to define a “perpendicular manner”. This numeral should be deleted since the term “perpendicular” has a clear meaning and adding a numeral and leader line to an already densely numbered figure only complicates the figure.
-Numeral “360” in Figure 16 is not clear. However, this numeral should be deleted from the specification since it defines both the term “adjacent” and the phrase “manually compressing”, neither which require a numeral.
-In Figures 5-7, axis “250” is depicted as extending past the structure. However, this is not accurate, since the axis “250” as depicted in Figure 1, follows the curvature of 235. Therefore, it would not extend out past the structure. Additionally
-In Figure 8, there are opposing arrows below the numeral “530” that are not defined with a numeral and it is unclear what they represent.
-In Figure 11, there are two occurrences of the numeral “540”, and numeral “435” appears to be pointing to the axis.
-Numerals “440”, “105”, “560”, “565”, “510”, “520”, “525” are not found in the specification.
-In the figures, finger rests are defined as 550/570, and also 370/380. The finger rests are then further defined as having “legs” which are defined as 555/575 and also as 375/385. While the finger rests can be defined as being legs, they do not need further numerals. Only ONE set of numerals should be used to define the finger rests. Additionally, the numerals 375/385 in Figure 2 appear to represent movement.
-The numeral “355” should be deleted from the figures since it us used to define the term “adjacent” which is explanatory from the figures and should not be labeled with a numeral.
-The numeral “365” should be deleted from the figures because it defines “placing” the watch, which does not require a numeral as a method is not being claimed.
-The numeral “165” should be deleted from the figures because it defines the term “parallel”, which does not require a numeral. Additionally, numeral “165” has two leader lines in Figures 16, 19, 20.
-In Figure 17, it is not clear what “90” is pointing to.
-In Figure 18, numeral “150” is pointing to the band and not to eh bottom of the support. This numeral should be deleted as it doesn’t add anything to the figure.
**The Examiner notes that these are examples of errors in the drawings but is not a comprehensive list. The Applicant is required to review the drawings in their entirety and amend accordingly. No new matter will be permitted.
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.
Specification
The specification amendment of 1/12/26 was NOT ENTERED, due to at least one marking being incorrect. In the amendment to page 25, paragraph 2, the original paragraph ended with the phrase “235, see Figures 15-18.”. However, in the amended paragraph, the paragraph ends right after the numeral “235”, yet was not marked accordingly to indicate that subject matter was being deleted. Any and all amendments, including additions and deletions MUST be marked. It is the burden of the Applicant to ensure that the specification and any amendments thereto are accurate.
The original specification therefore is still objected to with at least the same objections made in the non-final office action:
-The specification is objected to because the first paragraph of page 25 does not make sense. Numeral "305" is not a tangent, nor is it at the intersection "275". It is not clear what plane is being referred to as a plane is not depicted. Additionally, the secondary radius length "325" is also not tangent at "335". It is not clear how "330" is perpendicular to "315".
-The specification is objected to because is used both numerals "295" and "205" as a primary radius length.
-The specification is objected to because on page 28, numeral "490" is used to refer to a midpoint and to a length.
In an effort to further prosecution, while the specification amendment was NOT ENTERED, the Examiner has reviewed the amendment and indicated what objections would have been made if the specification was entered, such that the Applicant is able to amend the specification accordingly. Since the specification amendment was not entered, any amendments must be made with respect to the original specification.
The following are objections that would have been made if the specification was entered:
-The numeral “355” should be deleted from the specification because it defines the term “adjacent” which does not require a numeral.
-The numeral “365” should be deleted from the specification because it defines “placing” the watch, which does not require a numeral as a method is not being claimed.
-On page 24, paragraph 2, “flexible affixed” is not an element, dimension, or movement and therefore should not have a reference numeral “205”. The specification explains the flexible affixing between the elements at intersection point “215” and that is sufficient. Adding “205” complicates the connection.
-On page 24, paragraph 2, numeral “110” is used to define the second acute angle. However numeral 110 was already used to define the first acute angle. This needs to be amended to ---210---.
-On page 24, paragraph 2, numeral “135” is used to define the base section lengthwise axis, which was already defined as “160”.
-On page 24, paragraph 2, numeral “225” should be deleted as disclosed above in the drawing objections.
-On page 24, paragraph 3, “flexible affixed” is not an element, dimension, or movement and therefore should not have a reference numeral “270”. The specification explains the flexible affixing between the elements at interface “275” and that is sufficient. Adding “270” complicates the connection.
-On page 25, paragraph 1, the newly added language “said primary tangent point 305 is also disposed between the inner surface 145 of the planar base 130 and the inner surface 255 of the flexible extension element 235” is new matter. While the Examiner is allowing the movement of origin 300 to the location depicted in Figure 3 since there is support in the specification, as shown in amended Figure 3, the upper end of the primary radius does not extend to the inner surface 255. Therefore, this is new matter.
-On page 25, paragraph 1, it is stated that the secondary radius length “325” is “tangent” at “335”. This is not clear since first, a length is just a dimension and therefore cannot be tangent. Secondly, if referring to the secondary radius “320”, the secondary radius extends between the second origin “330” and the second tangent point “335”, but it is not tangent. The radius “length” should be removed from the drawings and specification since a radius is already a length, and this just adds confusion to the drawings.
-On page 25, paragraph 1, “perpendicular manner” was given a reference numeral “311”. This should be deleted.
-On page 25, paragraph 1, it is stated that the secondary radius length 325 is substantially perpendicular “from the flexible extension element axis 250”. This is new matter since not in the original specification.
-On page 25, paragraph 2, the phrase “a second free moving flexible cantilever arm 350 cantilever end 350” makes it unclear if the numeral “350” is defining the cantilever arm or end.
-On page 25, paragraph 2, the phrase “adjacent 360” should have numeral “360” deleted. First, this numeral was not found in the drawings. Secondly, the term “adjacent” should not be defined by a numeral. Later in the paragraph this same numeral “360” is used to define “manually compressing”. This should not have a numeral unless a force is being defined. It is clear that the flexible extension element 235 and the flexible cantilever arm 170 are manually compressed toward one another and therefore there is no need for any further numerals.
On page 26, paragraphs 2-4 use the term “alternative” but appear to be defining the same finger rests over and over. Additionally, finger rests are defined as 550/570, and also 370/380. The finger rests are then further defined as having “legs” which are defined as 555/575 and also as 375/385. While the finger rests can be defined as being legs, they do not need further numerals. Only ONE set of numerals should be used to define the finger rests. Lastly, the phrases “manually reduce 390”, “manually move 585”, and “manually 590” should have the numerals removed from the specifically and the drawings.
-On page 27, paragraph 2, the term “affixed” is defined as “485”. This numeral should be deleted from the specification and the drawings as it is not defining an element.
-On page 28, paragraph 1, a clip radius 445 is defined as having a clip radius length 450. However, a radius IS a length and therefore 450 should be deleted from the specification and drawings.
-On page 28, paragraph 2, the phrase “affixed 485” should have the numeral deleted from the specification and drawings.
-On page 28, paragraph 3, the amendment would result in the paragraph beginning with a comma.
-On page 28, paragraph 3, the phrase “manually compressing 390” and “manually spread apart 500” should have the numerals deleted from the specification and drawings.
-The numeral “165” should be deleted from the specification because it defines the term “parallel”, which does not require a numeral.
*The Examiner notes that the entire specification should be reviewed by the Applicant and amended accordingly to assure that the specification is accurate and correctly reflects the drawings. No new matter will be permitted.
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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
-The phrase “is on a desktop surface of a desk or a surface, or a shelf” is unclear since this makes it unclear if the desktop surface, surface or shelf is being positively claimed. The Examiner had suggested only claiming a functional recitation to a surface. While a functional recitation was included for the support apparatus to rest on a surface, the previous reference to the desktop surface, surface, or shelf, was not amended. Therefore, in the newly added language, “on a surface” makes it unclear if referring to a different surface than previously claimed, and “the surface” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Then later in the section the positioning of a user “at the desk” or “adjacent the shelf” would lack support if the support apparatus was on a surface that did not include a desk or shelf. The Examiner suggests broadly claiming “wherein said support apparatus is configured to rest on a surface”, and removing all reference to a desk, desktop surface, shelf, and positioning of the user with respect to the desk or shelf, throughout the claims.
-In section c, the new language “said primary tangent point is also disposed between the inner surface of the planar base 130 and the inner surface of said flexible extension element” is new matter. While the Examiner is allowing the movement of origin 300 to the location depicted in Figure 3 since there is support in the specification, as shown in amended Figure 3, the upper end of the primary radius does not extend to the inner surface 255. Therefore, this is new matter.
-In section c, the phrase “said secondary origin is positioned at said secondary radius length to be tangent at said second tangent point defined by said second radius length originating and extending inward from said inner surface of the flexible extension element in a substantially perpendicular manner from said flexible extension element axis at said second tangent point with said secondary radius length terminating at said secondary origin” is unclear. It is not clear how the secondary radius length is tangent. Additionally, the language regarding the secondary origin extending substantially perpendicularly from the flexible extension element axis is new matter since this was not originally disclosed. Lastly, the location of the secondary origin is in question due to the secondary origin being moved in the figures without support. In the original figure 3, the secondary radius 320 (or length thereof) is NOT depicted as being tangent to the second tangent point 335, nor is it perpendicular to the flexible extension element or axis thereof.
-In the section defining “wherein operationally” the watch is mounted on the support apparatus, only functional language should be used throughout this section when claiming the interaction between the watch and support apparatus since the watch itself is not positively claimed and therefore manipulation of the watch (stretching), placement of the watch, and contact of the watch should all be claimed with functional language since the claims are drawn only to the structure of the support apparatus.
Regarding Claim 5:
-The phrase “is on a desktop surface of a desk or a surface, or a shelf” is unclear since this makes it unclear if the desktop surface, surface or shelf is being positively claimed. The Examiner had suggested only claiming a functional recitation to a surface. While a functional recitation was included for the support apparatus to rest on a surface, the previous reference to the desktop surface, surface, or shelf, was not amended. Therefore, in the newly added language, “on a surface” makes it unclear if referring to a different surface than previously claimed, and “the surface” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Then later in the section the positioning of a user “at the desk” or “adjacent the shelf” would lack support if the support apparatus was on a surface that did not include a desk or shelf. The Examiner suggests broadly claiming “wherein said support apparatus is configured to rest on a surface”, and removing all reference to a desk, desktop surface, shelf, and positioning of the user with respect to the desk or shelf, throughout the claims.
-In section c, the new language “said primary tangent point is also disposed between the inner surface of the planar base 130 and the inner surface of said flexible extension element” is new matter. While the Examiner is allowing the movement of origin 300 to the location depicted in Figure 3 since there is support in the specification, as shown in amended Figure 3, the upper end of the primary radius does not extend to the inner surface 255. Therefore, this is new matter.
-In section c, the phrase “said secondary origin is positioned at said secondary radius length to be tangent at said second tangent point defined by said second radius length originating and extending inward from said inner surface of the flexible extension element in a substantially perpendicular manner from said flexible extension element axis at said second tangent point with said secondary radius length terminating at said secondary origin” is unclear. It is not clear how the secondary radius length is tangent. Additionally, the language regarding the secondary origin extending substantially perpendicularly from the flexible extension element axis is new matter since this was not originally disclosed. Lastly, the location of the secondary origin is in question due to the secondary origin being moved in the figures without support. In the original figure 3, the secondary radius 320 (or length thereof) is NOT depicted as being tangent to the second tangent point 335, nor is it perpendicular to the flexible extension element or axis thereof.
-In the section defining “wherein operationally” the watch is mounted on the support apparatus, only functional language should be used throughout this section when claiming the interaction between the watch and support apparatus since the watch itself is not positively claimed and therefore manipulation of the watch (stretching), placement of the watch, and contact of the watch should all be claimed with functional language since the claims are drawn only to the structure of the support apparatus.
-In the section d, defining the watch mounted on the support apparatus, only functional language should be used throughout this section when claiming the interaction between the watch and support apparatus since the watch itself is not positively claimed and therefore manipulation of the watch (stretching), placement of the watch, and contact of the watch should all be claimed with functional language since the claims are drawn only to the structure of the support apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The Examiner notes that any amendments to the claims that changes the scope of the claim may alter the allowability thereof.
Response to Arguments
No arguments were presented, but rather an indication of the amendments being made.
The Examiner notes that as shown above, the application is still replete with errors in the drawings, specification, and claims. Therefore, if the Applicant wishes to continue prosecution, a Request for Continued Examination will need to be filed. An after-final amendment will not be sufficient since a full review of the entire application will once again need to be done.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632