DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 11/19/2025. Currently, claims 2-6 are pending. Claims 1 and 7 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 11/19/2025 are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-5, “The corner guard” (line 1) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the “detachable corner guard assembly”. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “The detachable corner guard assembly”.
Claim 4, Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 4 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 6, there is an extraneous period at the end of line 10. This objection can be overcome by deleting the period and replacing it with a semi-colon.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-6 are 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.
Claim 2, “the sidewalls” is indefinite because the claims previously require sidewalls on the first corner guard and sidewalls on the second corner guard. Which sidewalls is the limitation referring to in the claim? See also claims 3-4.
Claim 2, “lateral edges of the sidewalls” is indefinite because the claims previously recite lateral edges on the first corner guard and lateral edges on the second corner guard. Which lateral edges are being referred to in the claim?
Claim 3, “the magnets” is indefinite because the claims previously require a plurality of magnets on the first corner guard and a plurality of magnets on the second corner guard. Which magnets are being referred to in the claim? See also claim 4.
Claim 5, “the lateral edges” is indefinite because the claims previously require a lateral edges on the first corner guard and lateral edges on the second corner guard. Which lateral edges are being referred to in the claim?
Claim 6, “the top surface, bottom surface and inner surface” (lines 6 and 16) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a top surface, a bottom surface or an inner surface.
Claim 6, “the corner guard” (line 10) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend to recite, “the first corner guard”?
Claim 6, “the corner guard” (line 20) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend to recite, “the second corner guard”?
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.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso et al. (US 20130312344) (‘Alonso’) in view of Jensen (US 5313754).
Claim 6 (note that claims 2-5 depend from claim 6 and is addressed first), Alonso teaches a detachable corner guard assembly 10, the corner guard assembly comprising:
a first corner guard (12, 14; Figs. 1-6) comprising:
two sidewalls (12 and 14) hingedly affixed across lateral edges to form an arch between said sidewalls (hinged at 16 or alternatively 25 and affixed across lateral edges to form an arch between said sidewalls; Figs. 1-6);
wherein the top surface, bottom surface and inner surface of the sidewalls are planar (Figs. 1-6);
a plurality of magnets affixed to one of an inner surface and outer surface of the sidewalls (magnets may be placed on inner surface 34; [0055]; Figs. 1-6); and
wherein the corner guard is longer in height than in width (it is understood that the first corner guard has a height and a width, and the height is greater than the width; Figs. 1-6);
a second corner guard (18, 20; Figs. 1-6) detachably affixed to the first corner guard (it is understood that the second corner guard is detachably affixed to the first corner guard, for example by frictional fit or locking ridges for selective positioning of each other; [0048]-[0052]; Figs. 1-6), the second corner guard operable to telescope relative to the first corner guard (it is understood that 18 and 20 are suitable to telescope relative to 12 and 14; Figs. 1-6), the second corner guard comprising:
two sidewalls (18, 20; Figs. 1-6) hingedly affixed across lateral edges to form an arch between said sidewalls (hinged at 16 or alternatively 25 and affixed across lateral edges to form an arch between said sidewalls; Figs. 1-6);
wherein the top surface, bottom surface and inner surface of the sidewalls are planar (Figs. 1-6);
wherein the corner guard is longer in height than in width (it is understood that the second corner guard has a height and a width, and the height is greater than the width; Figs. 1-6).
Alonso does not teach a plurality of magnets affixed to one of an inner surface and outer surface of the sidewalls of the second corner guard, and the second corner guard being detachably affixed to the first corner guard magnetically.
However, Jensen teaches a detachable corner guard assembly (see Figs. 4-6) comprising a corner guard 12 having a plurality of magnets 24 affixed to an inner surface of sidewalls (Figs. 4-6) such that the plurality of magnets are arranged at an upper level, an intermediate level and a lower level of the corner guard (Figs. 4-5) such that the plurality of magnets are integrated into the corner guard (col. 3, lines 15-40; Figs. 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the detachable corner guard assembly of Alonso by integrate a plurality of magnets into the second corner guard, such that the second corner guard is detachably affixed magnetically to the first corner guard, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting telescopic adjustment of the second corner guard relative to the first corner guard while also permitting the second corner guard to be held in position relative to the first corner guard with the plurality of magnets in the first and second corner guards, instead of or in combination with Alonso’s friction fit or locking ridges for selective positioning (Alonso [0048]-[0052]), since Alonso teaches use of magnets as a known means of temporary engagement (Alonso [0055]), and Jensen teaches that it is known to integrate magnets into corner guards.
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Alonso and Jensen teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches two edge guards (Alonso 30, 32) comprising flexible polymeric materials (Alonso [0041]), the edge guards affixed to lateral edges of the sidewalls (Figs. 1-6).
Claim 3, as modified above, the combination of Alonso and Jensen teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the sidewalls define a plurality of apertures (Jensen 26) into which the magnets are placed (Figs. 4-6).
Claim 4, as modified above, the combination of Alonso and Jensen teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches wherein the sidewalls define a plurality of apertures (Jensen 26) into which the magnets are placed (Jensen Figs. 4-6).
Claim 5, as modified above, the combination of Alonso and Jensen teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and further teaches an arcuate conjunction point between the lateral edges (Alonso 16 or alternatively 25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635