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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yadgard (2018/0368590).
Yadgard discloses a picture frame comprising: a wall-mountable inner portion (80, Fig. 5) configured to secure a picture (83, Fig. 5) therein; and an outer portion (90, Fig. 5) configured to removably secure to the inner portion (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 12, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 14, both the horizontal and vertical sections include equally spaced openings to accommodate magnets (95, 93, 97, 99, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, lip 100 (Fig. 5) comprises means for removably affixing a picture or matting to the inner portion.
Regarding claim 17, the friction fit of lip (100, Fig. 5) comprises means for removably securing the outer portion to the inner portion.
Regarding claim 20, see paragraph 0039.
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 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadgard (2018/0368590).
Yadgard discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above, including a first level (94, Fig. 5) in the upper horizontal section. Because it is well known to mount frames in either a portrait or a landscape orientation, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a level in one of the vertical sections also, in order to ensure that the frame is level when mounting it in a landscape orientation.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadgard (2018/0368590) in view of Humphrey (2005/0268510) and Buedingen (2,807,111).
Yadgard discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Yadgard does not disclose corner clips. Humphrey teaches that it was known to provide corner clips to hold a picture or mat in place. 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 Yadgard with corner clips, as taught by Humphrey, in addition to, or instead of, the lip (100, Fig. 5) to assist in holding the picture (83, Fig. 5) in place.
Further, Yadgard does not disclose a catch contained within at least one of the upper and lower horizontal sections. Buedingen teaches providing a catch 20, Fig. 1) in the upper and lower sections of a frame to hold a picture or mat in place. 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 Yadgard with a catch, as taught by Buedingen, in addition to, or instead of, the lip (100, Fig. 5) to assist in holding the picture (83, Fig. 5) in place.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadgard (2018/0368590) in view of Nesbitt (2016/0073796).
Yadgard discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the means for removably securing the outer portion to the inner portion is a friction fit. Nesbitt teaches using magnets to accomplish the same result. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the friction fit disclosed by Yadgard with magnets, as taught by Nesbitt, as a matter of design choice.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadgard (2018/0368590).
Yadgard discloses a picture frame comprising: a wall-mountable inner portion (80, Fig. 5) configured to secure a picture (83, Fig. 5) therein and having mounting means (88, Fig. 5); and an outer portion (90, Fig. 5) configured to removably secure to the inner portion (paragraph 0039). However, Yadgard only discloses one frame. Because inventions are intended to be mass produced, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make more than one of the frame disclosed by Yadgard.
Regarding claim 2, see Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 4, both the horizontal and vertical sections include equally spaced openings to accommodate magnets (95, 93, 97, 99, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, lip 100 (Fig. 5) comprises means for removably affixing a picture or matting to the inner portion.
Regarding claim 8, the friction fit of lip (100, Fig. 5) comprises means for removably securing the outer portion to the inner portion.
Regarding claim 10, see paragraph 0039.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the references to Mallory (3,339,302) and Wildhack (923,394) both disclose frames having a plurality of interlocking fins with spaces therebetween. These fins are meant to attach adjacent frames to each other. If an inner frame of the type disclosed by Yadgard (or other prior art inner frames) were modified to include such fins, the fins would be blocked from engaging with the fins of adjacent frames by the outer frame, which covers the inner frame. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to modify the inner frame to include such fins.
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