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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application CHINA 2023300377915 02/07/2023, CHINA 2023300558652 02/15/2023, CHINA 2023205158656 03/16/2023, CHINA 2023201829676 04/07/2023, CHINA 2023302313814 04/24/2023, ISRAEL 71073 07/10/2023, CHINA 2023217432172. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Line 2 recites “a. A”, it is suggested that the “A” be lowercase –a--.
Claims 2-20 Line 2 recites “a. Two” or “a. The”, it is suggested that Applicant replace the limitation with --b. two-- and --b. the--, since they are depending from Claim 1 which already indicates “a.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Claims 10 and 17 recite “a margin C is 1.5 times the length of a margin D” and “a margin A is 1.5 times the length of a margin B”, however from a review of the drawings it would appear that margins B/D are longer than margins A/C. 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.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11, 13, 14, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramirez (US 20120329623 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ramirez teaches a stretch box comprising: a. A box having five panels 20,22,24,26,28, the five panels being attached to each other forming a generally rectangular prism shape, the box having an outer side facing generally outward away from the box, the box having an inner side facing generally inward, the panels comprising a top panel 28, a front panel 20, a back panel 22, a left panel 24, and a right panel 26, the left panel configured with a plurality of apertures 12 passing between the outer side and the inner side, the right panel configured with a plurality of apertures 12 passing between the outer side and the inner side (Refer to FIG. 1 Paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The front panel 20 is configured with a plurality of apertures 12 passing between the outer side and the inner side, and the back panel 22 is configured with a plurality of apertures 12 passing between the outer side and the inner side (Refer to Fig. 1 Paragraph [0033]:” In the prototype shown in FIG. 1, the block illustrates four handholds 12 on the top surface 20 (with a corresponding four handholds 12 on the opposing bottom surface 22), four handholds 12 on the first side surface 24 (with a corresponding four handholds 12 on the opposing bottom surface 26), two handholds 12 on the first end surface 28 (with a corresponding two handholds 12 on the opposing bottom surface 30).”).
Regarding Claim 5, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The left panel 24 is configured with three apertures 12, and the right panel 26 is configured with three apertures 12 (Refer to Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The left panel 24 is configured with five apertures 12, and the right panel 26 is configured with five apertures, and the apertures 12 on the left panel substantially align with apertures 12 on the right panel (Refer to Fig. 1 Paragraph [0033]:” The block 10 may have any number or size of handholds 12 that is desired although at least two are necessary to achieve incremental benefit and objective measurement of progressive.”)
Regarding Claim 7, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The apertures 12 disposed through the left panel 24 are elongated apertures, and the apertures 12 disposed through the right panel 26 are elongated apertures 12, the elongated apertures having major diameters and an minor diameters (Refer to Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The apertures 12 have rounded edges (Refer to Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The panels 20,22,24,26,28 of the box are generally made of materials selected from the group consisting of wood and plastic (Refer to Paragraph [0029]:” In the preferred embodiment, the block is constructed of any rigid, stable material that is rigid and strong enough to support the weight of a person, including wood, rubber, plastic, cork, or rigid foam.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The front panel 20 is configured with two apertures 12, and the back panel 22 is configured with two apertures 12 (Refer to Fig. 2 Paragraph [0034]:” FIG. 2 illustrates an alternate embodiment of the block 10 reflecting two large handholds 12 on the top surface 20 (with a corresponding two large handholds 12 on the opposing bottom surface 22) rather than the four shown in FIG. 1.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The front panel 20 is configured with three apertures 12, and the back panel 22 is configured with three apertures 12, the apertures on the front panel substantially align with apertures on the back panel (Refer to Fig. 3 Paragraph [0035]:”FIG. 3 similarly illustrates an alternate embodiment of the block 10 having three handholds on the top surface 20 (with a corresponding three handholds 12 on the opposing bottom surface 22”).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The major diameter of the elongated apertures 12 are generally parallel to a X-axis (Refer to Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The major diameter of the elongated apertures 12 are generally parallel to a Y-axis (Refer to Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramirez continues to teach wherein: a. The major diameter of the elongated apertures 12 are generally parallel to a Z-axis (Refer to Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simpson et al (US 20140131138 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Simpson et al teaches a stretch box comprising: a. A box having five panels 20,30,40,50,60, the five panels being attached to each other forming a generally rectangular prism shape, the box having an outer side facing generally outward away from the box, the box having an inner side facing generally inward, the panels comprising a top panel 60, a front panel 30, a back panel 20, a left panel 60, and a right panel 50, the left panel configured with a plurality of apertures passing between the outer side and the inner side, the right panel configured with a plurality of apertures passing between the outer side and the inner side (Refer to Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ramirez continues to teach further comprising: a. Two notches, the notches being cavities disposed on a lower edge of the box, one notch being disposed on the left panel 50, one notch being disposed on the right panel 40 (Refer to annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Ramirez continues to teach further comprising: a. Two notches, the notches being cavities disposed on a lower edge of the box, one notch being disposed on the front panel 30, one notch being disposed on the back panel 20 (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
506
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramirez (US 20120329623 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Ramirez a margin C and a margin D (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
618
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
but fails to expressly disclose wherein: a. A margin C is offset from a margin D by half the length between adjacent apertures. The Office takes the position that such dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to produce a desired length suitable for grasping by a user and since Applicant does not provide criticality to such dimensions over other suitable length such modification would have been obvious and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 10, Ramirez teaches a length of margin C is larger than margin D (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image4.png
618
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
but does not expressly disclose wherein: a. The length of a margin C is 1.5 times the length of a margin D. The Office takes the position that such dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to produce a desired length suitable for grasping by a user and since Applicant does not provide criticality to such dimensions over other suitable length such modification would have been obvious and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 12, Ramirez teaches that the panels have a thickness but fails to expressly disclosure wherein: a. The panel thickness is between 10mm and 20mm. The Office takes the position that such dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to produce a desired thickness suitable for grasping by a user and since Applicant does not provide criticality to such dimensions over other suitable thickness but rather indicate that other thicknesses greater or smaller are suitable (Refer to Applicants specifications Paragraph [0035]) such modification would have been obvious and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 15, Ramirez teaches the apertures have a shape and that the panels maybe a variety of shapes (Refer to Paragraph [0030] The block, although pictured as six sided (rectangular), is not confined to this shape and other shape possibilities including square, oblong, oval or round with one or more flat surfaces, and other shapes could be used.) but fails to expressly disclose wherein: a. The apertures disposed through the front panel are circular apertures, and the apertures disposed through the back panel are circular apertures. The Office takes the position that since Applicant teaches a variety of shapes may be suitable for the aperture such a modification would have been an obvious matter of design choice and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts since Ramirez teaches that such shapes are known and interchangeable in the art. Refer to Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 16, Ramirez a margin A and a margin B (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
618
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
but fails to expressly disclose wherein: a. A margin A is offset from a margin B by half the length between adjacent apertures. The Office takes the position that such dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to produce a desired length suitable for grasping by a user and since Applicant does not provide criticality to such dimensions over other suitable length such modification would have been obvious and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Regarding Claim 17, Ramirez teaches a length of margin A is larger than margin B (Refer to annotated Fig. 1 below)
PNG
media_image5.png
618
528
media_image5.png
Greyscale
but does not expressly disclose wherein: a. The length of a margin A is 1.5 times the length of a margin B. The Office takes the position that such dimensions would have been obvious through routine experimentation to produce a desired length suitable for grasping by a user and since Applicant does not provide criticality to such dimensions over other suitable length such modification would have been obvious and does not patentably distinguish the invention over prior arts. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to attached list of references cited for prior arts pertinent to claimed and unclaimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYCA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7168. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, Loan Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4966. 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.
/NYCA T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784