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
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The whisker trap of claim wherein each of the pleat panels has a width of about three inches” lacks reference to another preceding claim. For purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as in the chain of dependency to claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,5-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11,712,148 B2 to Sakthivel et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claims 1-2,5-9, 11, Although Sakthivel discloses all of the limitations of the invention including configurations and constructions that form pivotable connections 180, integrally formed as a living hinge or pleat 181 that allows assembly 126 to fold and unfold in an accordion-like manner. Materials of construction include plastics (e.g., polypropylene, high density polyethylene and low-density polyethylene), metals (e.g., wires, sheets, and stamped sheets), and combinations thereof (e.g., coated wires or coated metal sheets). The construction material is selected so as to have a flexibility and resilience that allows for folding and unfolding at pleats 181 where the pleat panels have identical dimensions. The prior art reference to Sakthivel fails to explicitly disclose specific dimensions, specific angle of degree, cardboard or hydrophobic material, and material color (e.g., a sheet width that is greater than a sheet depth that is greater than a sheet thickness; each of the pleat panels having a pleat depth that is greater than a pleat width; wherein an average of the living hinge angles in the hair disposal configuration is smaller than the average of the living hinge angles in the deployed configuration, a radius that is less than a width of the pleat panels, the pleat panels has a width of about three inches, the sheet width is about thirty inches and the sheet depth is about twenty inches, white color surface) as claimed. The Applicant should note that the selection of a known material or color based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select specific dimensions, angles of degree, cardboard or hydrophobic material, and material color because Applicant has not disclosed that specific dimensions, angle of degree, cardboard or hydrophobic material, and material color provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the prior art of Sakthivel, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the dimensions or materials taught by Sakthivel or the claimed dimensions and materials because both would perform the same function and are equally capable of folding/unfolding in the same manner. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions and materials of Sakthivel to obtain the invention as specified in claim because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Sakthivel. See also MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a specific dimensions, materials and colors for the device because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. The motivation for designing a device to specific dimensions and materials would have been to use to accommodate the device in a particular space for a particular intended use. Regarding the language, “whisker trap” in the preamble has not been given patentable weight because the recitation is purely functional in nature and does not recite any structure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, US Patent D1,017,178 to Pinkerton is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of an adjustable countertop protector. Claims 3-4, 10, 12-14 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. Claims 15-17 are free from the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI BAKER whose telephone number is (571)272-4971. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 9 am - 6 pm CST. Upon filing an amendment, please notify the Examiner to ensure timely processing for review.
Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq.
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 Angwin can be reached on 571-270-3735. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/LORI L BAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Patents Application Assistance Center
Toll-Free:
1-888-786-0101
Local:
1-571-272-4000
Email: HelpAAU@uspto.gov
Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) Customer Service Center
Toll-Free:
866-217-9197
Local:
571-272-4100
ebc@uspto.gov
PAIR https://ppair.uspto.gov/epatent/portal/home
For ordering issues or general questions please contact:
Customer service phone line
Hours: 8:30 am – 5 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-972-6382 | Local number: 571-272-3150
For sign in and USPTO.gov account issues contact:
USPTO.gov account customer service
Hours: 8:30 am – 8 pm ET, Monday – Friday (except federal holidays)
Toll free: 1-800-786-9199 | Local number: 571-272-1000
TTY: 1-800-877-8339
Inventor and Entrepreneur Resources
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/inventors-entrepreneurs-resources
Inventors Assistance Center (IAC)
The Inventors Assistance Center (IAC) provides patent information and services to the public. The IAC is staffed by former Supervisory Patent Examiners, experienced Primary Patent Examiners, various intellectual property specialists and attorneys who can answer general questions concerning patent examining policy and procedure.
The IAC is available Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 8PM EDT, except for federal holidays or when the USPTO is otherwise closed.
Contact the IAC
Toll Free: 800-786-9199
Local: 571-272-1000
TTY: 800-877-8339
The MPEP can be accessed at the following web address: https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html
Information about the Pro Se Assistance Program, which can aid inventors who file patent applications without the assistance of a registered attorney or agent, is available at the following web address:
hftps://www.uspto.gov/patents
COMMUNICATIONS VIA THE INTERNET AND AUTHORIZATION
Communications via Internet e-mail are at the discretion of the applicant.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence will be placed in the appropriate patent application.
The following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
A written authorization may be withdrawn by filing a signed paper clearly identifying the original authorization. The following is a sample form which may be used by applicant to withdraw the authorization:
"The authorization given on______, to the USPTO to communicate with me via the Internet is hereby withdrawn. I understand that the withdrawal is effective when approved rather than when received."