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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Comments
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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Drawings
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 deformable material of claim 16; and the snaps, hook and loop material, and ratcheting mechanisms of claim 20 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0021] lacks any information. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “s” before “The protective device” should be eliminated. 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 1-20 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.
In claim 1 there is no clear distinction of where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins. Specifically, there is no delineation of the preamble from the body with a phrase with a colon. A colon should perhaps be added after “comprising” on line 3.
In claim 1, there is an inconsistency between the language in the preamble which sets forth that the claim is directed to a subcombination and line 1 reciting a combination in that the device is mounted on a vehicle, thereby making the scope of the claim indefinite and unclear. Applicant is required to clarify what subject matter the claim is intended to be drawn to, i.e., combination or subcombination, and to amend the language of the claim to be consistency with this intent. For the purpose of treating the claims based upon prior art, the claims have been treated as subcombination claims, and applicant should amend “mounted” (line 1) to “mountable”.
Claims 6-8 all recites “a Wind Velocity Reduction Factor” which lacks antecedent basis in the claims as this phrase was previously initially recited in claim 5 from which these claims depend.
Claims 6-8 are indefinite because claim 5 recites a specific WVRF and these claims recite different factors which don’t correspond to that which is recited in claim 5 from which all of these claims depend.
Claim 9 recites “the Wind Velocity Reduction Factor” which lacks antecedent basis in the claim because a Wind Velocity Reduction Factor is not previously recited in claim 1 from which this claim depends.
Claims 14-15 are indefinite because it is unclear how the open area is defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-3, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Stipanovich (7036869).
For claim 1, Stipanovich discloses a protective device (cage 10) mountable on a vehicle to protect the face of an animal from injury during travel when the head of the animal extends from the window of a door of the vehicle,
the protective device (10) comprising:
(1) a support frame (15,15’) that holds a screen (mesh 20),
wherein the frame comprises an inner portion (generally the portion closer to the vehicle near to 26,29) and an outer beam (the outermost mesh wire),
the inner portion comprising one or more extensions (26,29) extending from the inner portion for holding the frame normal to the door of the vehicle, and further comprising
(2) one or more connectors (74, 74’) for connecting the support frame to the vehicle, wherein the frame extends at least 8 inches away (Col 4, lines 11-13) from the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
465
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 2, further comprising one or more openings (FIG.3) in the inner portion of the support frame adapted to cooperate with the one or more connectors (the inner portion is capable of allowing connectors such as 71,71’) for holding the frame against the door of the vehicle.
For claim 3, the connectors (74,74’) comprise one or more straps adapted to (capable to) wrap around a portion of the door frame that also pass through the one or more openings of the inner portion of the support frame.
For claim 16, the support frame has a substantially rectangular shape (FIG.8) and comprises a deformable material (110 and 42) to protect the surface of the vehicle when in contact with the protective device.
For claim 17, the support frame is substantially D-shaped (FIG.8) or triangular (FIG.7).
For claim 19, the height of the support frame as mounted on the vehicle has a vertical dimension of at least 8 inches (Col 4, lines 11-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipanovich in view of the well known prior art.
For claims 4 and 20, the straps (74,74’) are cooperatively associated with buckles (75,75’) but fail to disclose quick-release snaps. Examiner takes official notice that quick release snaps as well known in the prior art for use with straps as evidenced by Aliev (2007/0194589) (below), Jessup et al. (7097204), Wall, II (20060284444), and Rankin et al. (20080211263).
PNG
media_image2.png
441
692
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided quick release snaps of the well known prior art for use with the straps of Stipanovich in order to allow for easy attachment of the device to the vehicle.
Applicant may seasonally challenge, for the official record in this application, this and any other statement of judicial notice in a timely manner in response to this office action. Please specify the exact statement to be challenged. Applicant is reminded, with respect to the specific challenge put forth, of the duty of disclosure under Rule 56 to disclose material which is pertinent to patentability including claim rejections challenged by applicant.
Claims 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipanovich in view of 18 x 16 plain weave aluminum mesh sold by STG (Screen Technology Group, Washougal, WA) (applicant’s prior art admission, [0012], MPEP 2129 I).
Stipanovich provides an open area where the screen comprises woven wires having at least one material selected from wire, but does not disclose the material (metal) or the particulars of the wire mesh.
The specification of the current application (admits on the record at [0012]) that STG sells a plain weave aluminum made from 5154 aluminum alloy with an open area of 66.08%, apertures of 0.0445" x 0.0515 in (1.13mm x 1.30mm) with a wire diameter of 0.011 in (0.279 mm) and a basis weight of 3.56 lbs/100 ft2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have substituted for the mesh of Stipanovich that of STG as an obvious expedient.
The claim would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR, 550 US at 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (Supreme Court 2007) (KSR) supports this rationale of a simple substitution.
Courts have recognized that it would have been obvious to substitute one known element for another that performs the same function, where the results of the substitution would have been predictable. See, e.g., Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed. Circ. 2008) (concluding that the claims were obvious, noting that “[t]he asserted claims simply substitute a resistive electrical switch for the mechanical pressure switch").
For claims 5-9, when the device of Stipanovich, as modified, is installed on the vehicle and the vehicle is traveling at a specific velocity (implicit), the device will necessarily provide a wind velocity reduction. Since the wind velocity reduction factor is based solely on the speed of the vehicle itself, the positioning of the measuring tool relative to the device, and not qualities or characteristics of the device itself, Stipanovich inherently satisfies the limitations of these claims. Further, as there are no further structural recitations limiting the invention in these claims and no evidence of criticality of the claimed range, the device of Stipanovich would perform equally well.
If a claimed range and a prior art range do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, then there would be a prima facie case of obviousness and the set value in the claimed range is not deemed critical or inventive. Likewise, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) and “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stipanovich in view of Moore (4801170).
For claim 18, Stipanovich fail to provide a reinforcing beam to support the screen, a feature known from Moore (as seen with members 30 in FIG.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
401
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided Stipanovich with a reinforcing beam as taught by Moore in order to stiffen and strengthen the device for additional support thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, VIVEK KOPPIKAR can be reached on 571.272.5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612B