DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
The “Drawings” (08/27/25) are not drawings, but rather a PDF of the arguments.
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.
The CIP is an improvement on the previous three-panel binder. The new matter is a “stop” however this stop is insufficiently illustrated. Stops on the “first plurality of stops” are shown (in low resolution) in Figure 3, however, the stops on the “second plurality of stops” is not shown in any detail. There is no detail on how the stops are formed on the “folding panels between each hinge”. These are shown insufficiently in small detail from a side perspective. It is unclear how the first and second stops interact to halt further hinging.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1=20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. All the different “stops” and their structural interrelation cannot be ascertained (See below).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationship between the first plurality of stops and the second plurality of stops. The structure of the second plurality of stops is insufficiently depicted in the Drawings, particularly the interaction between the first and second stops (see objection to Drawings).
Upon further consideration, it appears that each of the panels contains alternating “stops” which are simply “cutouts” (e.g. see Figure 4). Also, each panel includes bent portions 71 “additional stops” opposite the cutouts (“stops”), however it is unclear how these two elements interact to form a “stop”. Since the alternating cutouts forming the stops are spaced from the bent portion 71, it is unclear how or in what manner these “stops” engage each other to effectuate a “stop”. Drawings would be sufficient to show such engagement however, the Drawings are of low resolution, including the PDF not scanned into the file wrapper.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (JP 3,148,952) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Rodell (US 1,455,550).
In respect to claim 1, 11-13, and 18, the claims are impossible to ascertain for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 above, however, as best can be construed by the examiner, Otsuka disclose a foldable clipboard comprising: three (at least two) folding panels 1a/1b/1c which are configured to form a planar surface when positioned in an expanded position (Fig. 1); two (at least one) plurality of hinge assemblies, each hinge position relative to another hinge in a transverse alignment, a portion of the hinges formed on the first and second folding panels (Figs. 1, 4d); the folding panels may further overlapped in a folded position (Fig. 5).
Otsuka disclose the hinge construction as claimed, but does not disclose stops. The exact configuration of the stops are both indefinite and unclear for numerous reasons in the 35 USC 112 rejection above, however, Rodell teach a similar constructed cylindrical hinge wherein the hinge further includes a first plurality of stops 11 on alternating portions of the hinge assemblies, and a second plurality of stops formed as the edge of the on one of the folding panels, the stops cooperating to abut one another in an expanded position (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to modify the hinges taught in Otsuka to include stops in view of Rodell to limit the opening distance of a door, or similar mounted substrate (Pg. 1, 29-43). It is noted that although preferred in use with a door, the invention solves the same problem, namely avoiding contact between the two substrates being hinged together (Pg. 1, 71-93).
In respect to claims 2-6 and 14-17, the claims are drawn to specifics of the hinge and stop system, which cannot be clearly ascertained for the several reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 rejection. However, Otsuka in view of Rodell appear to teach the claimed structural limitations.
In respect to claims 7-8 and 19-20, Otsuka further disclose that the foldable clipboard comprises a spring-loaded clip and mounting bracket 2 (Fig. 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otsuka (JP 3,148,952) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Rodell (US 1,455,550) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liptan (US 2007/0187565).
Otsuka in view of Rodell substantially teach the claimed invention, but do not teach rounding of the corners of the folding panels or the materials of the folding panels. However, Liptan teaches a very similar foldable clipboard as Otsuka, and further that the folding panels are rounded. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the folding panels taught in Otsuka and Rodell with rounded corners in view of Liptan as to not snag if providing in a pocket (0011). Liptan further teach that the folding panels may be any material, including metal or plastic (0012). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the folding panels taught in Otsuka and Rodell as metal or plastic in view of Liptan, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/27/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has bolded and/or underlined various portions of the Specification; however, this has not facilitated any argument that the Specification clearly and definitely provides for the interaction between the claimed “stops”. The interaction between the stops is at least unclear and indefinite for the reason detailed in the 35 USC 112(b) above.
The arguments against the prior art cannot be adequately addressed since the structures, namely the “stops”, are unclear and indefinite. Any alleged differences between the prior art and the application cannot be ascertained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637