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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 9A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14, 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the recitation, “a plurality of joints, each configured to be connected between two adjacent side members and one of the leg members, each of the plurality of joints comprising: two side member insertion channels having a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape, wherein the side member insertion channels are configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of side members in one of the two side member insertion channels and an end of another one of the plurality of side members in the other of the two side member insertion channels; a leg member insertion channel having a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of leg members in the leg member insertion channel ” is confusing and/or not clear because the phrase, “side member” relates to side member 1 part and is also a description for the joint 3 portion, “side member insertion channels”. Language regarding the side member insertion section of the side member is omitted, thereby causing no distinction as to which side member is being referred. For clarity, the Examiner suggests language such as –joint side (or leg) member insertion channels— to replace “side (or leg) member insertion channels” reference. (For example, --a plurality of joints 3, each configured for connection between two adjacent side members 1 and one of the leg members 2, each end of the plurality of joints 3 comprising: joint side member insertion channels 4 having a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape, wherein the joint side member insertion channels 4 are configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of side members 1 insertion section 7 in one of the two joint side member insertion channels 4 and an end of another one of the plurality of side members 1 insertion section 7 in the other of the two joint side member insertion channels 4; a joint leg member insertion channel 5 having a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of leg members 2 in the leg member insertion section 9).
In at least claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, the phrase “to be”, and “has been” (claim 12) is narrative in form and/or interpreted as indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified, organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The inclusion of such subjective expressions introduces ambiguity by suggesting that the claimed element(s) to which they relate, are optional. Review these and other claims for similar language.
In claims 16 and 17, the terms “regular” polygonal shape and “irregular” polygonal shape is not clear. The Examiner requests clarification as to what is meant by the terms regular and irregular.
Since claims 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 13 are in the chain of dependency to claim 1, they too are subjected to the same objection. Appropriate correction is required for all objections.
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, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent 10,246,891 B2 to Huang (BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MAT CORP.).
As best understood by the Examiner, Huang discloses a swimming pool frame (see figure 1), comprising a plurality of side members 10 (see figure 2), each of the plurality of side members including respective ends (see figure 4; opposite ends of side member 10 proximate reference numeral 11) having respective side member insertion sections 11 with respective circular cross-sectional shapes, the side members being configured to be connected together to form a frame bounding an interior area 40-42 (see figure 1); a plurality of leg members 20 (see figure 2), each of the plurality of leg members including a leg member insertion section 21 (see figures 4-5), the leg member insertion section having a circular cross-sectional shape; a plurality of joints 30-32 (see figure 2), each configured to be connected between two adjacent side members and one of the leg members (see figures 2-5), each of the plurality of joints comprising two side member insertion channels ( see figures 3-5; the two ends of horizontal portion 31) having a circular internal cross-sectional shape, wherein the side member insertion channels are configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of side members in one of the two side member insertion channels and an end of another one of the plurality of side members in the other of the two side member insertion channels (see figures 2-5); a leg member insertion channel (at the end of vertical portion 32) having a circular internal cross-sectional shape configured to receive an end of one of the plurality of leg members 20 in the leg member insertion channel (see figures 2-5); and a retention pin 60 (see figures 4-5,10) configured to be inserted through and retained between each side member insertion channel and an end of a corresponding one of the plurality of side members (see figures 4-5, 10). Huang is silent as to non-circular cross-sections. Instead, Huang indicates each side member and leg member insertion channels are capable of having various shapes preferably circular, elliptical or D-shape radial cross-sectional shapes (see col. 6, lines 63-68 thru col. 7, lines 1-2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the side member insertion channels and leg member insertion channel to have a circular internal cross-sectional shape or non-circular cross-sectional shape because Applicant has not disclosed that a non-circular cross-sectional shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (see para 0039 and 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the device of Huang, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the circular, elliptical or “D” shape taught by Huang or the claimed non-circular shape because both shapes would perform the same function of receiving the end of a side member or leg member. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
565
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. claim 15, Huang discloses a swimming pool joint unit 30 comprising a frame joint having a pair of side member insertion channels (the two ends of horizontal portion 31), each having a first cross-sectional shape configured to receive therein an end of a side member 10, each of the pair of side member insertion channels comprising a locking hole 33 formed through an outer wall thereof; and a leg member insertion channel (end of vertical portion 32) having a second cross-sectional shape and configured to receive therein an end of a leg member 20. Huang does not disclose the pair of side member insertion channels each having a polygonal cross-sectional shape and the leg member insertion channel having a polygonal cross-sectional shape. Instead, Huang indicates that the side member insertion channels have a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape (see col. 6, lines 63-68 thru col. 7, lines 1-2) and a leg member insertion channel 32 having a non-circular internal cross-sectional shape (see col. 6, lines 63-68 thru col. 7, lines 1-2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the pair of side member insertion channels and leg member insertion channel to have a polygonal cross-sectional shape or non-circular cross-sectional shape because Applicant has not disclosed that a polygonal cross-sectional shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (see para 0039 and 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the device of Huang, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the non-circular shape taught by Huang or the claimed polygonal shape because both shapes would perform the same function of receiving the end of a side member or leg member. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Re. claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner, Huang discloses a first cross-sectional shape and a second cross-sectional shape is a regular shape. Huang does not disclose a first polygonal cross-sectional shape and a second polygonal cross-sectional shape as a regular polygonal shape. Instead, Huang indicates that first and second cross-sectional shapes have a non-circular internal cross-sectional regular non-circular shape (see col. 6, lines 63 thru col. 7, line 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the cross-sectional shape to have a regular polygonal shape or regular non-circular shape because Applicant has not disclosed that a regular polygonal shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (see para 0039 and 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the device of Huang, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either a regular non-circular shape taught by Huang or the claimed regular polygonal shape because both shapes would perform the same function of receiving the end of a side member or leg member. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Re. claim 17, Huang discloses a first cross-sectional shape and a second cross-sectional shape is a regular shape. Huang does not disclose a first polygonal cross-sectional shape and a second polygonal cross-sectional shape as an irregular polygonal shape. Instead, Huang indicates that first and second cross-sectional shapes have a non-circular internal cross-sectional regular non-circular shape (see col. 6, lines 63 thru col. 7, line 2). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art for the cross-sectional shape to have an irregular polygonal shape or non-circular regular shape because Applicant has not disclosed that an irregular polygonal shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem (see para 0039 and 0041). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the device of Huang, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either the non-circular regular shape taught by Huang or the claimed irregular polygonal shape because both shapes would perform the same function of receiving the end of a side member or leg member. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Huang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-14 and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see USPTO Form 892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. More specifically, U.S. Patent 12,523,052 Ramos et al is directed to the state of the art as a teaching of a pool frame 106,108 having a pool liner 102 and band 110 with a sleeve 114,200 and protrusion (see figures 2c-d) extending from the sleeve for locking the frame members.
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. 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