DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 § 112
3. 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.
● Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the bottom plate has a string supporter storage groove formed therein in which the strength-reinforcing rib is inserted to store the string supporter when the string supporter is separated from the bottom plate” (emphasis added).
However, it is unclear how the “string supporter” is considered to be “separated from the bottom plate” if the “string supporter” is still positioned on part of the “bottom plate”; namely, its “storage grove”. Consequently, due to the contradictory assertions above, claim 7 is ambiguous or indefinite.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C.112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph:
Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA )], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
● Claims 2, 3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
(a) Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1; and the limitation, “a fixing clip which is fitted into the top of the string supporter to restrict the movement of a string hung on the string hanging grove”, which claim 2 is reciting, is already recited per claim 1 (see lines 7-9).
Similarly, claim 3 is dependent on claim 1; and the limitation, “an inclined supporter which is coupled to the upper portion of the bottom plate to support the string supporter”, which claim 3 is reciting, is already recited per claim 1 (see lines 10 and 11).
Thus, claims 2 and 3 fail to comply with section §112(d) since each of these claims fails to add further structural limitation(s) to the apparatus recited per claim 1.
(b) Note that each of claims 8 and 9 suffers from the same deficiency discussed above per claim 3 since the above claims are directly or indirectly dependent on claim 3.
(c) Similarly, claim 10 also suffers from the same deficiency discussed above per claim 2 since claim 10 is dependent on claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Spilbor 2011/0278842 in view of Stepheson 4,186,951.
Regarding claim 1, Spilbor teaches the following claimed limitations: a teaching aid for knotting practice ([0001]) comprising: a bottom platform (FIG 1, label “10”: e.g., the base board corresponds to the bottom platform); a string supporter which is vertically coupled to an upper portion of the bottom plate and having a string hanging groove formed from the top thereof ([0042]; also see FIG 1: e.g., label “15A”, “15B” or “15C”, which is a vertical post, corresponds to the string supporter; and label “18A”, “18B” or “18C”, which is a recess portion of the post, corresponds to the string hanging grove formed from the top thereof); a fixing clip which is fitted into the top of the string supporter to restrict the movement of a string hung on the string hanging groove ([0042]; also see FIG 1: e.g., label “19A”, “19B”, or “19C”: e.g., the cap fitted on top of the post, which is the string supporter, corresponds to fixing clip that restrict the movement of a string hung on the string hanging grove).
Spilbor does not teach an inclined supporter which is coupled to the upper portion of the bottom plate to support the string supporter.
However, Stephenson teaches a device for making macrame (col.1, lines 5-10), which is the art of knotting string in patterns to make decorative articles; and wherein the device comprises: a base board (FIG 1, label “11”); a vertical post (FIG 1, label “16”) positioned on the upper portion of the base board; and also a diagonal (i.e., an inclined) support (FIG 1, label “21”), which is utilized to stabilize the post from fore and aft movement with respect to the base board (col.2, lines 35-41).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Spilbor in view of Stephenson; for example, by incorporating at least one diagonal support to be attached to at least to one of the posts; wherein one of the ends of the diagonal support is attached to the upper surface of the base board, whereas the other/opposite end is attached to the post; so that, the arrangement stabilizes the post from fore and aft movement with respect to the base board (e.g., when the user pulls a string that is attached to the recess/grove portion of the post, etc.); and thereby, the above improves the overall stability and/or durability of the structure.
Regarding each of claims 2 and 3, Spilbor in view of Stephenson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
In this regard, the limitation, “a fixing clip which is fitted into the top of the string supporter to restrict the movement of a string hung on the string hanging grove”, as recited per claim 2, and the limitation, “an inclined supporter which is coupled to the upper portion of the bottom plate to support the string supporter”, as recited per claim 3, are already addressed per the discussion presented with respect to claim 1 since claim 1 already incorporates each of the above limitations (again see above the findings presented per claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Spilbor in view of Stephenson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1.
Spilbor further teaches, the string supporter is coupled to at least one of two sides of the bottom plate (FIG 1, label “15A”, “15B or “15C”: e.g., at least one of the vertical posts—i.e., “15A”, “15B” or “15C”—is attached to at least one of the two sides of the base board, which is the bottom plate).
● Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Spilbor 2011/0278842 in view of Stepheson 4,186,951 and in view of Hoheisel 2019/0365121.
Regarding claim 5, Spilbor in view of Stepheson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 4.
Spilbor does not teach that the string supporter has a strength-reinforcing rib formed in the vertical direction.
However, Hoheisel teaches an apparatus that comprises a support road (i.e., a supporter), which implements a rib formed in a vertical direction (see FIG 14, label “10”); and wherein the apparatus also comprises a base (see FIG 14, label “20”) that incorporates at least one recess (FIG 14, label “21”), which conforms with the shape of the rib; so that, the leg portion of the support rod is securely attached to the base.
Accordingly, given the above teaches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Spilbor in view of Hoheisel; for example, by incorporating at least one of the vertical post—a string supporter—that has a longitudinal rib on at least one of its sides (e.g., swapping at least one of the vertical posts with such vertical post that has a longitudinal rib, etc.); and wherein the base is also arranged to include at least one receiving groove that conforms with the shape and size of the rib, etc.; so that, such implementation above provides an alternative arrangement for easily attaching and detaching one or more of the vertical posts to/from the base (e.g., an alternative to the arrangement that requires a threaded interface, etc.); and furthermore, based on the type of knotting procedure being practiced, the above also minimizes or eliminates the chance of the vertical post from being unintentionally rotated, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Spilbor in view of Stepheson and in view of Hoheisel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 5.
Spilbor further teaches, the string supporter is detachably coupled to the bottom plate, and wherein the bottom plate has a coupling groove formed therein to allow the bottom of the string supporter to be inserted ([0040] lines 9-12: e.g., the vertical post, which correspond to the string support, already has a bottom part or leg that is inserted into a corresponding recess on the base via press fit or threaded connection. Thus, the string supporter is already detachably coupled to the bottom plate; and the bottom plate already has a coupling groove formed therein to allow the bottom of the string supporter to be inserted).
Regarding claim 7, Spilbor in view of Stepheson and in view of Hoheisel teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 6.
The limitation, “the bottom plate has a string supporter storage groove formed therein in which the strength-reinforcing rib is inserted to store the string supporter”, is already addressed per the modification discussed per claim 5. This is because Spilbor’s apparatus, as modified per the teaching gleaned from Hoheisel, already incorporates at least one vertical post—i.e., a string supporter—that has a longitudinal rib on at least one of its sides; and furthermore, the base incorporates a groove that conforms with the shape and size of the rib; so that besides providing an alternative arrangement to easily attach/detach the string supporter to/from the base, the above further minimizes the string supporter from being unintentionally rotated during use, etc.
Accordingly, the modification discussed per claim 5 above already addresses claim 7 since the groove above also function as a storage groove. This is because the string supporter is inserted into the groove, as required per the claim, regardless of whether the intended purpose is for storage or not.
It is also worth to note that part of the limitation, “when the string supporter is separated from the bottom plate”, is irrelevant since it contradicts with the claim. In particular, claim 5 already establishes that the “storage groove” is part of the bottom plate; and wherein the “string supporter” is inserted into that “storage groove”. Thus, regardless of whether the intended purpose of the inserting action above is for storing purpose or not, the “string supporter” is not separated from the bottom plate (also see the issue raised per section §112(b) above).
● Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Spilbor 2011/0278842 in view of Stepheson 4,186,951 and in view of Fritz 921,534.
Regarding claim 8, Spilbor in view of Stepheson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed per claim 3.
Spilbor, as modified per Stepheson, does not expressly teach that the inclined supporter is detachably coupled to the bottom plate, wherein support protrusions are respectively formed on upper and lower portions of the inclined supporter, and wherein one or more retaining grooves into which the support protrusions are respectively inserted are formed on the bottom plate and string supporter respectively.
However, Fritz teaches a brace (see label “4” per FIG 1, FIG 3, FIG 8, FIG 9; or label “28” per FIG 11), which is an inclined support for supporting a vertical post (see label “1” per FIG 1; label “27” per FIG 8 and FIG 9; or label “31” per FIG 11); wherein the brae has a protruded portion on each of its two ends (e.g., label “5” per FIG 3 or label “32” per FIG “11” represents the protrusion at the bottom end; and wherein the upper end—not labeled—of the brace “4” as depicted per FIG 3 and FIG 9, or label “30” per FIG 11 and FIG 12, represents the protrusion at the upper end of the brace); and furthermore, (a) the protrusion located at the bottom end of the brace (inclined support) is inserted into a corresponding groove on a base (see label “7” per FIG 1, FIG 5 and FIG 11); and also (b) the protrusion located at the upper end of the brace is inserted into a corresponding groove on the vertical post (see FIG 8 and FIG 9, wherein the upper end—not currently labeled—of the brace “4” is inserted into a groove of the post “21”; or see FIG 11, which depicts the protrusion—label “30”—of the brace—label “28”—is inserted into the groove of the post “31”).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Spilbor in view of Fritz; for example, by incorporating an alternative arrangement that allows the diagonal support to be removably attached; wherein each of the upper end and the lower end of the diagonal support is provided with a corresponding protrusion; and furthermore, (a) one or more retaining grooves, which receive the protrusion on the upper end of the diagonal support, are incorporated on the vertical post; and also (b) one or more retaining grooves, which receive the protrusion on the lower end of the diagonal support, are incorporated on the base board; and accordingly, the user would have the additional flexibility to easily remove and/or attach the diagonal support (e.g., depending on the type of procedure being trained; for ease of maintenance, etc.).
Regarding claim 9, Spilbor in view of Stepheson and further in view of Fritz teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 8.
The limitation, “wherein the inclined supporter has an insertion protrusion formed
therein so that the inclined supporter can be stored by being fit into the retaining groove formed in the bottom plate when not in use”, is already addressed per claim 8.
Although claim 9 is reciting that the inclined supporter has an insertion protrusion, which is used to store the inclined supporter by fitting it into the retaining groove, the above does not necessarily differentiate the structure claimed per claim 8. This is because the lower end of the diagonal support already incorporates a protrusion, which is arranged to be inserted (i.e., fitted) into one or more of the retaining grooves on the base board; and accordingly, whether the above protrusion at the lower end is designated as “an insertion protrusion” or not, it does accomplish the function or purpose of the claimed insertion protrusion. Moreover, the condition above remains true regardless of whether the intended purpose is to store the diagonal support (the inclined support) when it is not in use.
The observation above confirms that the modification discussed per claim 8 already addresses claim 9 (note that the same motivation, which is discussed per claim 8, also applies to claim 9).
● Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Spilbor 2011/0278842 in view of Stepheson 4,186,951 and in view of LeTourneau 6,217,086.
Regarding claim 10, Spilbor in view of Stepheson teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 2.
Spilbor does not expressly teach that the bottom plate has a fixing clip storage groove formed therein to store the fixing clip therein.
However, LeTourneau teaches an apparatus for practicing knot tying; wherein the apparatus comprises a base (FIG 1, label “110”); and wherein the base incorporates at least one groove (see FIG 1, the groove—not labeled—utilized to store the cards).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the apparatus of Spilbor in view of LeTourneau; for example, by forming one or more storage groves on one or more parts of the base (e.g., forming one or more additive grooves—according to one or more desired sizes—on the base by attaching wooden blocks according to one or more desired shapes; such as, circular, rectangular, etc.); so that the user would have further flexibility to easily store one or more items that he/she may use during practice; such as, instructions cards, one or more caps/clips, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715