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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are objected to because they contain more than one sentence. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the statement that “corrugated plastic is the most commonly used for this type of application” makes it unclear whether corrugated plastic is being positively claimed.
Further, the statement that “a set of mini flags may be inserted into said tubular sign frame” makes it unclear whether the flags are part of the claimed invention.
Further, it is unclear whether the “tubular frame structure” is the same as the “frame” recited earlier, or is a different frame.
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 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (2005/0082761) in view of Blood et al. (2022/0142128).
Lynch discloses the same PVC pipe frame disclosed by Applicant and recited in the claims. Although Lynch does not disclose a set of mini flags, those flags are recited as being optional.
Further, although Lynch does not disclose two dual-sided sign boards, the claim only requires that the frame be able to display such boards.
Further, Lynch does not disclose that the stands (151-154, Fig. 1) are filled with cement. Blood teaches filling PVC pipes with cement in order to provide greater stability. See paragraph 0099. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the stands disclosed by Lynch with cement, as taught by Blood, in order to improve the stability of the frame.
Regarding claim 3, Lynch discloses upper and lower sections.
Regarding claim 5, Lynch discloses the same number of pieces as are disclosed in the instant invention. Compare Fig. 1 of Lynch with Fig. 1 of the instant invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edman (5,083,390) in view of Blood et al. (2022/0142128).
Edman discloses the same PVC pipe frame disclosed by Applicant and recited in the claims. See Fig. 2. Although Edman does not disclose a set of mini flags, those flags are recited as being optional.
Further, Edman does not disclose that the stands (151-154, Fig. 1) are filled with cement. Blood teaches filling PVC pipes with cement in order to provide greater stability. See paragraph 0099. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fill the stands disclosed by Edman with cement, as taught by Blood, in order to improve the stability of the frame.
Regarding claim 2, see slot 28 in Fig. 2, column 3, lines 8-13, and column 3, lines 58-61.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch (2005/0082761) in view of Blood et al. (2022/0142128), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Banniza et al. (4,878,303).
Lynch discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Lynch does not disclose holes in the frame for displaying mini flags. Banniza teaches providing holes in a frame in order to display mini flags. 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 frame disclosed by Lynch with holes for displaying mini flags, as taught by Banniza, in order to improve the aesthetic appearance of the frame and call attention to it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record discloses sign frames having various configurations of support feet. But the prior art of record does not disclose a sign frame having two configurations of removable cement filled stands.
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