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
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 18/415,406, filed 1/17/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
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 9 and 11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 9 and 11, line 3, “the second layer or both” has no antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “first layer” should be “said first layer”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Von Ryberg(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2021/0040790; cited on PTO 892).
Von Ryberg discloses a restroom privacy barrier(500, used on a door and therefore useable as a res room barrier meeting the functional claim limitation) comprising:
a first layer of material(506) comprising a length, a proximal end, a distal end, a top surface, and a bottom surface(see Figs. 5-6;
a spine(501, see Figs. 5-6), said spine comprising a length greater than the length of said first layer of material, a proximal end, a distal end, a top surface, and a bottom surface;
a plurality of adhesive zones wherein an adhesive material is disposed on a bottom surface(element 501 is glued to the door and therefore considered to have zones where an adhesive attached the element to the door 507, see para. [0105]); wherein said bottom surface of said spine is disposed on said top surface of said first layer of material, wherein said proximal end of said spine extends beyond the proximal end of said first layer of material forming a first tab(504a, see Figs. 5-6) and said distal end of said spine extends beyond the distal end of said first layer of material forming a second tab(504b, see Figs. 5-6).
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 3, 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Ryberg.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Von Ryberg discloses the restroom privacy barrier of claim 1, wherein the spline is attached by gluing to the door, but lacks the specific location and attachment of the spline and material with attachment zones.
The specific manner of attachment of the layer and spline and locations thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claim 19, Von Ryberg discloses the restroom privacy barrier of claim 1, but lacks the specific material of the barrier being biodegradable.
The specific material of the layer and spline is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use and design requirements thereof.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-18 and 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.
Claims 9 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art of record shows a barrier having first and second layers of material with a spline layer movable joined therebetween, the spline having a length less than a length of one of the layers forming a first and second tab, as in claim 2, or a barrier having a layer of material with a spline disposed thereon, the spline having a length less than a length of the layer forming a first and second tab, and a plurality of wings at a medial point of the length of the layer, as in claims 9 and 11, nor any motivation to do so.
Prior Art
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 BETH A. STEPHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. STEPHAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Stephan/