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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the applications as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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.
“side clearance opening” is an apparent error for –relief opening--.
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)(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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dylewski et al. US 11718166.
Dylewski et al. have frame 270/110, panels 16 with hinge 26, the panels movable form expanded horizontal position to folded standing state relative the frame and supportive component or brace 300 maintaining the panels standing.
Claim 2, the brace comprises a first plate 354 fixed to the frame 110/118, first side connector 350 with base connected to 354, tapered section shown in figure 43, and ball end segment also shown..
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.
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) 3,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dylewski et al.
Dylewski et al. secures the component 300 to the panel inwardly with a latch 326, figure 39. Using the ball end segment 350,354 at the panel end is deemed to be an obvious reversal of parts to one of ordinary skill in this art a graduate engineer or experienced designer to allow ease of component removal.
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Dylewski et al. duplicating the ball ends to the component brace as an obvious expedient in this art.
Claim 4, with the above duplication of parts, the component rod 300 has a cavity at both ends.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dylewski et al. in view of Trout US 841072.
Paragraphs 6-8 above is incorporated by reference. Dylewski et al. uses a strap 280 to secure the panels standing, figure 32, but lacks the binding component taught by Trout at L to secure the panels together. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Dylewski et al. the binding of Trout to ensure no panel movement during operation.
Claims 13-14, Dylewski et al. have a rod seat mounting base 326, figure 39 and base plate 354 on the frame 110.
Claim 14, Dylewski et al. have rod seat 368, figure 39 and paragraph 105..
Claim(s) 15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dylewski et al. in view of Facchinello et al. US 12187108.
Paragraphs 6-8 above is incorporated by reference. Dylewski et al. lacks the protective components disposed next to the hinge to form a buffer between multiple panels, taught by Facchinello et al. at 112, figures 7-9a. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Dylewski et al. the components of Facchinello et al. to prevent folding damage to the panels.
Claim 16, Dylewski et al. have rectangular frame 32 figure 11 but lacks a shield member over the panel, deemed to be an obvious expedient to one of ordinary skill in the form of an acrylic or clear plastic panel to protect the panel from damage. It would have been obvious at the time of filing to provide in Dylewski et al. the shield member as an obvious expedient in this art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,7, 9-12, 17-20 are 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.
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 is allowed for the relief opening in the rod end, claim 9 for the strap base of the panel with buckle end on another panel and claim 17 for the detail limitations of the frame member.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art details folding panels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS H PEDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-6667. The examiner can normally be reached 4:30-1pm.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571-270-5550. 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.
/Dennis H Pedder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3612
DENNIS H. PEDDER
Examiner
Art Unit 3612
DHP
12/17/2025