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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 510 (paragraph 0029).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rod (claim 5) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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)(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 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dodd (6,843,012).
Dodd discloses a sign-holder that allows a person to hold a sign without the use of their hands, the sign-holder comprising: a back structure (13, Fig. 3); two shoulder supported members (36, 37, Fig. 3); each shoulder supported member comprising: a first end; a second end; where the shoulder supported members are attached to the back structure (Figs. 2 and 3); one or more upright rods (21, 22, Fig. 3); one or more sign fasteners per each upright rod (Fig. 4); one or more connector assemblies per each upright rod (Fig. 4); where each connector assembly fastens the back structure to the corresponding rod, where the one or more sign fasteners per each upright rod are attached to the corresponding upright rod; where the one or more sign fasteners per each upright rod fasten to the sign.
Regarding claim 8, the sign fastener disclosed by Dodd (Fig. 4) appears to be a bold. A bolt inherently has a first end, a second end, and a nut, the nut comprising a means to fasten a sign.
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 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Schorr (2019/0092087).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the upright rods disclosed by Dodd do not appear to be telescoping. Schorr teaches making sign support rods telescoping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upright rods disclosed by Dodd telescoping, as taught by Schorr, in order to control the elevation of the display.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Iida (2007/0294855).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Dodd does not disclose a back pad for cushioning between the person’s back and the back structure. Iida teaches providing a back pad (20, Fig. 2) on a backpack frame. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the backpack frame disclosed by Dodd with a back pad, as taught by Iida, in order to cushion the user’s back.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Langlois (2007/0216600).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Dodd discloses two rods. Langlois teaches providing a single rod centered to the back structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the back structure disclosed by Dodd with a single rod centered thereon, as taught by Langlois, as a matter of design choice.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Cook (11,808,405).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Dodd does not disclose a cross rod. Cook teaches attaching a sign to a shoulder-mounted carrier via a cross rod (22, Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sign disclosed by Dodd via a cross rod, as taught by Cook, as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 14, the sign fastener disclosed by Dodd (Fig. 4) appears to be a bold. A bolt inherently has a first end, a second end, and a nut, the nut comprising a means to fasten a sign.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Cook (11,808,405), as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Schorr (2019/0092087).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the upright rods disclosed by Dodd do not appear to be telescoping. Schorr teaches making sign support rods telescoping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upright rods disclosed by Dodd telescoping, as taught by Schorr, in order to control the elevation of the display.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Silverstein et al. (2012/0036752).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the display disclosed by Dodd is attached directly to the upright rods. Silverstein teaches attaching a display to a board. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the display disclosed by Dodd to a board, as taught by Silverstein, in order to facilitate interchanging the display, if desired.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Silverstein et al. (2012/0036752), as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Schorr (2019/0092087).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, the upright rods disclosed by Dodd do not appear to be telescoping. Schorr teaches making sign support rods telescoping. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the upright rods disclosed by Dodd telescoping, as taught by Schorr, in order to control the elevation of the display.
of design choice.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dodd (6,843,012) in view of Silverstein et al. (2012/0036752), as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Cook (11,808,405).
Dodd discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Dodd does not disclose a cross rod. Cook teaches attaching a sign to a shoulder-mounted carrier via a cross rod (22, Fig. 2A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the sign disclosed by Dodd via a cross rod, as taught by Cook, as a matter of design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, 11, and 18-20 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:
Regarding claim 5, Dodd does not disclose a connector assembly comprising a rod, a first end with a first fastener, and a second end with a second fastener. The other prior art of record does not disclose or suggest providing such a fastener in combination with the other elements recited.
Regarding claim 10, Dodd does not disclose a sign fastener comprising a bore with a central axis, a threaded shaft, a top end, a bottom end, and one or more L-shaped brackets comprising a vertical member, a horizontal member, and a bolt, in the orientation recited. The other prior art of record does not disclose or suggest providing such a fastener.
Regarding claim 18, Dodd does not disclose a ferromagnetic board and magnetic sign fasteners. The other prior art of record does not disclose or suggest such a structure in combination with the other recited elements.
Claims 6, 7, 11, 19, and 20 would be allowable based on their dependencies, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631