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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, & 10, the term “close” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim; and the specification does not provide a standard for measuring the scope of the term or ascertaining the requisite degree. Hence one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 3 & 10-12 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong (2274106) in view of Fitch (1836911).
Regarding claim 1, Strong teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a metal plate (16); but fail(s) to teach painting a metal plate; or a painting protector. However, Applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that painting a metal plate is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to paint the metal plate of Strong, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the aesthetic appearance & durability thereof.
Additionally, Fitch teaches a painting protector (5-8) attached to an edge of a plate (2, T’), comprising: a front cover (6 except 8) contacting a front side of the edge when the painting protector is attached to the edge (Fig. 1); a back cover (5) contacting a back side of the edge when the painting protector is attached to the edge (Fig. 1); and an edge cover (7) connecting the front cover and the back cover that covers a tip of the edge when the painting protector is attached to the edge (Fig. 1), wherein the front cover is a flat plate that is in close contact with the front side of the edge (Fig. 3), wherein the back cover is a curved plate that is curved or bent outward (at 5a – see Figs. 1-3), wherein the back cover is configured, when the painting protector is attached to the edge, to form a gap between a tip of the back cover and the back side of the edge (Fig. 1) by elastic deformation (Figs. 1-2), and to apply a pressing force due to the elastic deformation to the edge between the curved or bent portion of the back cover and the front cover (p. 1, lines 75-78). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add a painting protector, as taught by Fitch, to the painted metal plate of Strong as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a cleaner, more finished appearance thereto (as suggested by p. 1, lines 6-13 of Fitch).
Additionally, applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion that making an edge structure from ASA resin is well known in the art (see Admissions of Prior Art (APA), below). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the painting protector (i.e., the edge structure) of Strong as modified from ASA resin, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the cost thereof. Hence, Strong as modified would teach a front cover (6 of Fitch except 8 of Fitch), the back cover (5 of Fitch), and the edge cover (7 of Fitch) that are integrally molded of ASA resin.
Regarding claim 4, Strong teaches an outdoor cubicle, comprising: a surface component (16 of Strong, as modified) formed using a painted metal plate and exposed to an outside of the outdoor cubicle (Figs. 1 & 5 of Strong); wherein the surface component is an eave (16 of Strong, as modified) provided on an upper part of a door (33, 58 of Strong), and wherein the painting protector is attached to a front edge of the eave (see above)
Regarding claim 10, Strong teaches a painting protector (5-8 of Fitch) attached such that the front cover (6 of Fitch except 8 of Fitch) is in contact with an upper surface of the front edge (implied by Fig. 1 of Fitch, showing 6 to be in contact with the front-facing surface of an edge (2, T’; and by Fig. 5 of Strong, showing the front-facing surface of the metal plate (16) to be an upper surface of a front edge of an eave (16)) and the back cover (5) is in contact with a lower surface of the front edge (implied by Fig. 1 of Fitch, showing 5 to be in contact with the rear-facing surface of an edge (2, T’; and by Fig. 5 of Strong, showing the rear-facing surface of the metal plate (16) to be an lower surface of a front edge of an eave (16)), and the front cover is formed in a flat plate shape so as to be in close contact with the upper surface (as in Fig. 1 of Fitch).
Claims 3 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong (2274106) & Fitch (1836911) in view of Peay (8763965). Strong as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including an edge structure/painting protector (5-8 of Fitch) attached to a painted metal plate (16 of Strong, as modified); but fail(s) to teach caulking material. However, Peay teaches positioning caulking material (28) between (Fig. 15 & col. 5, lines 26-31) an edge structure (10) and a plate (46). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add caulking material, as taught by Peay, between the painting protector and painted metal plate of Strong as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a stronger connection therebetween (as suggested by col. 2, lines 19-22 of Peay). Hence, Strong as modified would teach a caulking material (28 of Peay) filled inside an edge cover (7 of Fitch).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the term “close” in claims 1, 4, & 10 is not indefinite, because the limitations recited in claim 1 equate “close” to mean “direct contact with no gap” (Remarks at 5). However, claim 1 contains no language specifically defining “close” to mean “direct contact with no gap”. Nor is any such definition supplied by the written description of the instant application. Hence, the use of the term “close” in claims 1, 4, & 10 renders those claims, and any claims depending therefrom, indefinite.
Admissions of Prior Art (APA): Applicant has not traversed the examiner's taking of Official Notice that the practice(s) of painting a metal plate; and making an edge structure from ASA resin; is well known in the art. As such, said practice(s) is therefore viewed as being admitted prior art (APA). See MPEP 2144.03.
The remainder of applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the prior art rejection above.
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 MATTHEW ING whose telephone number is (571)272-6536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.. 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.
/MATTHEW W ING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights