DETAILED ACTION
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on January 25, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2300682 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 4 – 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “... a first surface, referred to as a top surface, of said deck” in the second paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require that the ‘first surface’ is a ‘top surface’ of the deck, or whether Applicant merely intends the limitation to be named a ‘top surface’ of the deck. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a first surface, which is a top surface, of said deck.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “... a second surface, referred to as a bottom surface, of said deck” in the third paragraph of the body of the claim. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to require that the ‘second surface’ is a ‘bottom surface’ of the deck, or whether Applicant merely intends the limitation to be name the ‘second surface’ as a “bottom surface” of the deck. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “... a second surface, which is a bottom surface, of said deck.”
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “each bearing zone” in the last paragraph. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to each of the “four bearing zones” previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth ‘bearing zones’ other than those previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “each of the bearing zones.”
Claims 4, 5, and 6 each recite the limitation “said each bearing zone.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitations as “each of said bearing zones.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thibaut (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0352694) in view of Schmalz (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0201593, cited in IDS).
As to claim 1, Thibaut teaches a drawing device (abstract), said drawing device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figures 1 and 2, element 1 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 23); a drawing column configured to carry a drawing tool (figure 2, any one of elements 30 being the ‘drawing column’; paragraphs 70 and 74 – 75), said drawing column being secured to a first surface of said deck, which is a top surface, of said deck (figure 2, elements 30 and 1; paragraph 73); a seal extending over a periphery of a second surface of said deck, which is a bottom surface, of said deck, said seal being configured, during use of said drawing device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 3 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 2 being the ‘closed space’; paragraph 24) and an air pump, in fluid communication with the closed space at an orifice in said deck, said air pump being controlled and configured to generate a negative pressure in said closed space so as to secure said deck to said support surface (figure 1, element 4 being the ‘vacuum-generation means’ and ‘air pump’ and element 4a being the ‘orifice’; paragraphs 25 – 26)
PNG
media_image1.png
605
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Thibaut teaches the deck being circular in shape (figure 2, element 1),
rather than a quadrilateral shape having four corners. Schmalz teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 16), a seal extending over a periphery of a second surface of said deck, said seal being configured, during use of said drawing device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 22 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 24 being the ‘closed space’; paragraphs 16 – 17). Schmalz further teaches that the deck has a quadrilateral shape having four corners (figure 2, element 20). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the circular deck of Thibaut, such that the deck has a quadrilateral shape having four corners, as taught by Schmalz, because one skilled in the art would have recognized that either a circular or a quadrilateral shape provides the same benefit of providing a closed space to generative negative pressure and secure the deck to a support surface, as desired by Thibaut (paragraphs 25 – 26).
Schmalz further teaches that the deck further comprises four bearing zones disposed at the corners of said deck (figure 1, elements 28 and 32 being the ‘bearing zones’; paragraphs 16 – 20), wherein each of the bearing zones are in the form of a shoe manufactured from an adherent material and are configured for putting the deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the deck of Thibaut with the bearing zones of Schmalz because Schmalz teaches that the bearing zones provide the benefit of supporting the deck when the deck is secured to the support surface (paragraphs 18 and 19). It is further the position of the Examiner that the bearing zones of Schmalz are configured for absorbing shearing forces appearing during use of the drawing device in order to protect the seal. This can be found because Schmalz teaches that the four bearing zones are located in the four corners of the deck (figure 1, elements 28, 32, and 20), and Applicant’s Specification teaches that when bearing zones are located in the four corners of the deck, the bearing zones act to absorb shearing forces (page 2, lines 26 – 29).
As to claim 4, Schmalz teaches that each of the bearing zones are manufactured from a polymer (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18).
As to claim 5, Thibaut does not teach a bearing zone that is secured removably to said second surface of said deck. Schmalz teaches a drawing device (abstract), said device comprising: a deck, adapted to be removably secured to a support surface (figure 1, element 20 being the ‘deck’; paragraph 16), elastic sealing means comprising a seal and extending over a peripheral of a second surface of said deck, said elastic sealing means being configured, during use of said device, to be disposed between the deck and the support surface to form a closed space (figure 1, element 22 being the ‘elastic sealing means’ and ‘seal’ and element 24 being the ‘closed space’; paragraphs 16 – 17), characterized in that said deck further comprises at least one bearing zone configured to put said deck in contact with said support surface (figure 1, elements 28 and 32 being the ‘bearing zones’; paragraphs 16 – 20). Schmalz further teaches that the at least one bearing zone is secured removably to the second surface of said deck (figure 1, elements 32; paragraph 18). Examiner notes that this can be found because Schmalz teaches that bearing zone 32 is a separate element from bearing zone 28 and the second surface of the deck (figure 1, elements 32, 28, and 20; paragraph 18). Because Schmalz does not teach the bearing zone 32 being fixedly secured to the bearing zones 28, the deck, or any other element, it is the position of the Examiner that the bearing zones 32 are removably secured to the second surface of the deck. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the deck of Thibaut with the bearing zones of Schmalz because Schmalz teaches that the bearing zones provide the benefit of supporting the deck when the deck is secured to the support surface (paragraphs 18 and 19).
As to claim 6, Schmalz does not teach how the bearing zones 28 are secured to the second surface of the deck. However, it is the position of the Examiner that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to secure the bearing zones 28 to the second surface of the deck by screwing, so as to allow the bearing zones 28 to be removed and replaced upon excessive wear.
As to claim 7, Thibaut teaches that said deck comprises a groove for receiving said seal (figure 1, see below)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 8, Thibaut teaches that the seal is removably secured in said groove (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
As to claim 9, Thibaut teaches that the seal is in the form of a seal extending over the whole of the periphery of said second surface of said deck (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
As to claim 10, Thibaut teaches that the seal is manufactured from a polymer (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
AS to claim 11, Thibaut teaches that the said is manufactured from ethylene propylene diene monomer (figure 1, element 3; paragraph 24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 4 – 6, that the bearing zones of Thibault in view of Schmalz are not configured to ‘absorb shearing forces appearing during use of the drawing device in order to protect the seal,’ as recited by claim 1. Examiner disagrees. As explained above, Thibault in view of Schmalz teaches the deck having a quadrilateral shape with four corners (Schmalz, figure 1, element 20), wherein a bearing zone having a shoe shape and comprising an adherent material is located in each of the four corners (Schmalz, figure 1, elements 28 and 30; paragraphs 16 – 20). Furthermore, Applicant’s Specification teaches that when bearing zones are located in the corners of the deck, the bearing zones act to absorb shearing forces appearing during use of the drawing device (page 2, lines 26 – 29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rotem (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0288795) teaches a drawing device comprising: a deck; a drawing column being secured to a first surface of said deck; a seal extending over a periphery of a second surface of said deck, said seal being disposed between the deck and a support surface to forma closed spaced; and an air pump, in fluid communication with the closed space at an orifice in said deck.
Blick (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0309283) teaches a drawing device comprising: a deck; a drawing column being secured to a first surface of said deck; a seal extending over a periphery of a second surface of said deck, said seal being disposed between the deck and a support surface to forma closed spaced; and an air pump, in fluid communication with the closed space at an orifice in said deck.
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 CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (EST).
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights