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 18/427,485, filed 1/30/2024.
Replacement drawings have been received.
Claims 1-22 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 1-22 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 1 and 14-16, “each base” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the one or more bases” the rejection would be overcome.
In claims 4, 11, and 12, “each base extension” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the two or more base extensions” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 5-7, 9 and 11, “each stabilizer member” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the one or more stabilizer member” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 8, line 1, “each stabilizer” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the one or more stabilizer member” the rejection would be overcome.
In claims 10 and 11, “each lateral extension” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the lateral extensions” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 13, “each telescopic section” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the one or more telescopic sections” the rejection would be overcome.
In claims 19 and 20 “each screen securing member” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the one or more screen securing members” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 19, line 3, “one of the lateral extensions” has no antecedent basis.
In claim 21, “each fastener” is not clear if referring to the previously set forth element or to an additional feature of the claim. By changing the phrase to “each of the fasteners” the rejection would be overcome.
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, 4, 14, 18-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niwa(6,052,227; cited on PTO 892).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Niwa discloses an apparatus comprising:
a self-storing system(see Figs. 1 and 2) comprising:
a container(2) at least partially defining a receiving space(receiving elements 3, 5 and 6, see Fig. 4);
two or more bases(6) coupled to the container(see Figs. 4-7 and 9), wherein each of the one or more base comprises two or more base extensions(the base extensions make up the base 6 meeting the claim limitation, see Figs. 1 and 4);
wherein the self-storing system is configured to move between a storage position(see Figs. 2 and 4) to a deployed position(see Fig. 1); in the storage position the one or more bases are located within the receiving space; in the deployed position the two or more base extensions extend from the container and out of the receiving space.
Regarding claim 4, Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the two or more base extensions(6) extends from the receiving space and project away from each other in the deployed position(see Figs. 1, 4, 6 and 8).
Regarding claim 14, Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein in the storage position, each of the bases extends along a first direction(see Fig. 2), and in the deployed position, each of the bases extends along a second direction(see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the self-storing system further comprises a winding member(see column 3, lines 32-36) located in the receiving space and a screen(9) attached to the winding member.
Regarding claim 19, Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the self-storing system further comprises a screen base(9, see Fig. 1) coupled to the screen(3) and one or more screen securing members(10) coupled to the screen base(9); and each of the screen securing members(10) couples the screen base(9) to one of the lateral extensions(5, see Fig. 1) in the deployed position.
Regarding claim 20, Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein each of the screen securing members(10) comprises a fastener(10) configured to secure the screen securing member(10) to one of the lateral extensions(5, the weight of the securing member is considered to “secure” the elements to one another meeting the claim limitation, see Fig. 1).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa in view of Liao(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2020/0022269; cited on PTO 892).
Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein covers(8) are provided over the container with securing members(portions extending away from 8 and attached to container 2, see Figs. 10-11), and a cover(4), but lacks the use of a cover enclosing the receiving space for the bases and securing members to secure the cover.
Liao discloses a container(11) having an assembly therein with a cover(21) secured to the container(see Fig. 1).
It would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided the container of Niwa with a cover, such as disclosed by Liao, with a reasonable degree of success, in order to have enclosed the space within the container and hidden the components of the system given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa and Liao, as evidenced by applied to claim 2, and further in view of Graffis(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2013/0270784; cited on PTO 892).
Niwa and Liao disclose the apparatus of claim 1, but lack the specific attachment between the parts of the container.
Graffis discloses a container having two halves held together via a strap(22).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the container connection of Niwa with the strap of Graffis given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that 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.
Claims 5-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa, as evidenced Ciraolo(6,830,517; cited on PTO 892).
Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the self-storing system further comprises one or more stabilizer members(14), and the stabilizer members are coupled to the base extensions slideable along the base extensions via a permanent connection/lateral extension(19) when moving from the deployed to the storage position but lacks each of the members coupled to at least two of the base extensions.
The use of a stabilizer between two spaced legs is considered well known in the construction art(as evidenced by Ciraolo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the system of Niwa with duplicate stabilizers, stowable within the container like other elements of the apparatus, between the base extensions to have added support to the system. The manner in which the stabilizer is attached to the base extension and storage thereof is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa in view of Allen(4,017,152; cited on PTO 892).
Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but lacks the base extensions comprising one or more telescopic sections.
Allen discloses a portable screen having legs(106, see column 5, lines 17) that have telescoping extensions.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the legs of Niwa with the telescoping legs of Allen given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa in view of Allen, as evidenced by Figueroa(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2004/0182806; cited on PTO892).
Niwa and Allen disclose the apparatus of claim 12, wherein each of the telescopic sections is configured to be secured or loosened via a telescopic joint, but lacks the joint rotating.
The use of rotation in joints is considered well known in the construction art(as evidenced by Figueroa).
Therefore, it would have been well within the purview of a skilled artisan to have provided the joint of Allen with a rotating joint in order to have allowed for the ease of movement between the telescoping sections without the need for additional fasteners for ease of storage of the apparatus.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa in view of Cao(U.S. Pat. Appl. Publ. 2022/0266953; cited on PTO 892).
NIwa discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but lacks the use of a lock between the container and base extensions.
Cao discloses a container housing(14) with base extensions(16) and a screen(22), and a lock engagement with a lock(see para. [0070] – [0072] and Figs. 16-22) locking the base extension to the container.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the legs of Niwa with the lock of Cao given that KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert. granted, 547 U.S. __ (2006) has found that 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. The specific fastener used to secure the base extension to the container in the deployed position, such as a threaded fastener, is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof, such as ease of use of the lock
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa.
Niwa discloses the apparatus of claim 20, but lacks the fastener securing the screen securing member to the lateral extensions being threaded.
The specific fastener used to secure the screen securing member and lateral extensions is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan given the intended use of the system and design requirements thereof, such as whether the fastener is removeable or permanently attached.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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.
Prior art shows a similar container with a screen but none with the specifics of the container and screen and the screen adjacent the stabilizer in use such that the lateral extension is rotationally coupled to the stabilizer member, 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/