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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a first flexure laterally spaced from a second flexure (cl. 20); a lateral series of flexures interspersed between a plurality of stringers (cl. 21); and a lateral series of flexures that extends along a lateral screen width (cl. 22) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claims 3, 10-13, & 16 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 claim 3, this claim recites “said opening”; but claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites “a first opening”, “a second opening”, and “a third opening”. It is therefore unclear which of these openings “said opening” in claim 3 refers to. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “said opening” in claim 3 to refer to the same component(s) as “a first opening” in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-13, each of these claims recites “said stringer”; but claim 1, from which from which each of these claims depends, recites “a first stringer”, and a “second stringer”. It is therefore unclear which of these stringers “said stringer” in each of these claims refers to. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “said stringer” in each of these claims to refer to the same component(s) as “a first stringer” in claim 1.
Regarding claims 10-13, each of these claims recites “a first of said bridges”; but claim 1, from which from which each of these claims depends, recites “a first bridge”. It is therefore unclear whether “a first of said bridges” in each of these claims refers to the same component(s) as, or different component(s) than, “a first bridge” in claim 1. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “a first of said bridges” in each of these claims to refer to the same component(s) as “a first bridge” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites “said bridge portion”; but claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites “a first bridge”. It is therefore unclear whether “said bridge portion” in claim 16 refers to the same component(s) as, or different component(s) than, “a first bridge” in claim 1. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering “said bridge portion” in claim 16 to refer to the same component(s) as “a first bridge” in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the recitation of method step(s) “wherein said flexure permits flexure of said flex screen about said flex axis while also resisting accordioning of said flex screen in said lateral direction” in this apparatus claim renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear a device must actually perform these steps, or merely be capable of such performance, in order to read upon these limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p). Clarification is required. For examination purposes, the examiner is considering the above limitation to mean “wherein said flexure [can] permit[] flexure of said flex screen about said flex axis while also resisting accordioning of said flex screen in said lateral direction”.
Claims 18-22 are indefinite due to dependence upon an indefinite base claim.
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 1-5 & 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), as shown in Figs. 1a-1d of the drawings, and discussed in pp. 9-10 of the written description, of the instant application.
PNG
media_image1.png
251
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a flex screen (40) including: a lateral screen width (Fig. 1a) along a lateral direction (16), a longitudinal screen length (Fig. 1a) along a longitudinal direction (17), a screen thickness (47) along a thickness direction (18); a first perimeter edge (A in Fig. 1a Annotated) along said lateral width and a second perimeter edge (B) longitudinally opposed and spaced from said first perimeter edge (Fig. 1a); a plurality of openings (42) extending through said screen thickness (p. 9, line 18) and having a longitudinal length (Figs. 1a-1c) and a lateral width (45 - see p. 9, line 5), including a first opening (C) laterally adjacent a second opening (D) and longitudinally adjacent a third opening (E); a plurality of elongated stringers (44) extending along a stringer axis (Figs. 1a-1c), including a first stringer (F) laterally positioned between said first opening (C) and said second opening (D); a plurality of laterally extending bridges, including a first bridge (G) longitudinally positioned between said first opening (C) and said third opening (E); wherein said first opening (C) is laterally bounded between said first stringer (F) and a second (H) of said stringers and is longitudinally bounded by said first bridge (G); said first bridge serving to span and connect said first stringer to said second stringer (Fig. 1a); wherein said first opening (C) is longitudinally staggered from said second opening (D) such that said first bridge (G) is connected to said first stringer (F) at a location longitudinally partway along said second opening (Fig. 1a); wherein said flex screen may be elastically flexed to a flexed orientation (Figs. 1b-1d) about a flex axis (43) such that laterally spaced portions thereof are displaced from each other in said thickness direction (Fig. 1d); wherein said elastic flex includes the torsional displacement of said first stringer and said second stringer (Fig. 1d & p. 10, line 2). AAPA fail(s) to teach openings that are wider than the thickness of the stringers. However, altering the size and shape of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the flex screen 1/4” thick, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase its structural integrity; and to make each of the openings 1/2” wide and 4” long, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the weight of the flex screen. Hence, AAPA as modified would teach a lateral width (i.e., 1/2”) of a first opening (C) that is greater than the thickness (i.e., 1/4”) of at least one of a first stringer (F) and a second stringer (H).
Regarding claim 2, AAPA as modified teaches a lateral width (i.e., 1/2”) of a first opening (C) that is at least twice the thickness (i.e., 1/4”) of at least one of a first stringer (F) and a second stringer (H).
Regarding claim 3, AAPA as modified teaches a longitudinal length (i.e., 4”) of said opening (C) is greater than its lateral width (i.e., 1/2”).
Regarding claim 4, AAPA teaches a flex screen (40) having an open area (i.e., proportion of the flex screen (40) occupied by the openings (42)). Additionally, altering the size and shape of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the open area of AAPA as modified 40%, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the weight of the flex screen.
Regarding claim 5, AAPA teaches a flex screen (40) capable of being supported (e.g., via an appropriately-size & -shaped track) adjacent said first perimeter edge (A).
Regarding claim 10, AAPA teaches a stringer (F) that is an elongated element spanning along a stringer axis between a first of said bridges (G) and a second of said bridges (J), wherein said stringer axis extends in a longitudinal direction (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 12, AAPA teaches a stringer (F) that an elongated element having an elongated stringer length spanning between a first of said bridges (G) and a second of said bridges (J), and a stringer width perpendicular to said stringer length, wherein said stringer width is generally constant along the majority of said stringer length (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 14, AAPA as modified teaches a first opening (C) that has a generally uniform lateral width (i.e., 1/2”) along the majority of its longitudinal length (see above).
Regarding claim 16, AAPA teaches a bridge portion (G) that is generally rigid and without appreciable flexural displacement (Fig. 1d) due to said flexure of said flex screen about said flex axis (43).
Regarding claims 11, 13, & 15, AAPA as modified teaches a stringer (F) and a first opening (C) each having a constant lateral width. Additionally, altering the size and shape of a component has been held to involve only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make each of the openings oval-shaped, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to satisfy user aesthetic preferences. Hence, AAPA as modified would teach a stringer (F) that is an elongated element spanning along a stringer axis between a first of said bridges (G) and a second of said bridges (K), wherein said stringer axis extends in a direction that includes both longitudinal and lateral directional components (as implied by Fig. 1a); wherein said stringer (F) is an elongated element having an elongated stringer length spanning between a first of said bridges (G) and a second of said bridges (K), and a stringer width perpendicular to said stringer length, wherein said stringer width is variable along said stringer length (as implied by Fig. 1a); and wherein said first opening (C) has a generally variable lateral width along its longitudinal length (owing to its elliptical shape).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Peterson (471138).
Regarding claim 6, AAPA as modified teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a flex screen (40); but fail(s) to teach a furniture element. However, Peterson teaches a furniture element (Fig. 1), wherein said furniture element includes a laterally extending track (b) configured to receive a first perimeter edge (i.e., perimeter edge of G), and wherein, with said first perimeter edge engaged to said track, said track serves to maintain said flexed orientation (Figs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a furniture element, as taught by Peterson, to the structure of AAPA as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide additional storage capacity.
Regarding claim 7, AAPA as modified teaches a furniture element includes a second track (b of Peterson) longitudinally opposed (as in Fig. 3 of Peterson) to said track (b of Peterson), said second track is configured to receive (as in Fig. 1 of Peterson) said second perimeter edge (B of AAPA), wherein, with said second perimeter edge engaged to said second track, said track serves to maintain said flexed orientation (as in Fig. 1 of Peterson).
Regarding claim 8, AAPA as modified teaches a flex screen (40 of AAPA) that may be laterally displaced (as in Fig. 1 of Peterson) relative to said furniture element along said track (b of Peterson).
Regarding claim 9, AAPA as modified teaches a track (b of Peterson) that serves to limit displacement of said flex screen (40 of AAPA) therefrom in both the longitudinal and thickness directions (as in Figs. 2-3 of Peterson).
Claims 17-18 & 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Barlough (2214653).
PNG
media_image2.png
148
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, AAPA teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a flex screen (40); but fail(s) to teach a flexure. However, Barlough teaches connecting means (30) comprising a flexure (L in Fig. 3 Annotated) spanning laterally between a first stringer (28) and a second stringer (28), wherein said flexure can permit flexure of a flex screen (12) about a flex axis while also resisting accordioning of said flex screen in said lateral direction (Figs. 3-5); and wherein at least one of the vertical thickness of said flexure is less than the vertical thickness of at least one of a bridge and said first stringer (Fig. 3); and (ii) the flexural modulus of the material of said flexure is less than the flexural modulus of the material of said first stringer (col. 2, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Barlough, to the flex panel of AAPA as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement while facilitating flexing of the panel.
Regarding claim 18, AAPA as modified teaches a flexure (L of Barlough) that is adjacent (as in Figs. 1-2 of Barlough) said first perimeter edge (A of AAPA).
Regarding claim 20, AAPA as modified teaches a plurality of said flexures (L of Barlough) to include a first flexure (one of L of Barlough) and a second flexure (another of L of Barlough), wherein said first flexure is laterally spaced from said second flexure (as in Fig. 3 of Barlough).
Regarding claim 21, AAPA as modified teaches a plurality of said flexures (L of Barlough) to create a lateral series of said flexures (as in Figs. 1 & 3 of Barlough) interspersed between said plurality of said stringers (44 of AAPA).
Regarding claim 22, AAPA as modified teaches a lateral series of said flexures (L of Barlough) that extends along said lateral screen width (as in Figs. 1 & 3 of Barlough).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Farrell (262030).
Regarding claim 17, AAPA teaches the structure substantially as claimed, including a flex screen (40); but fail(s) to teach a flexure. However, Farrell teaches connecting means (30) comprising a flexure (g, g’) spanning laterally between a first stringer (f) and a second stringer (f), wherein said flexure can permit flexure of a flex screen (E) about a flex axis while also resisting accordioning of said flex screen in said lateral direction (Fig. 3); and wherein at least one of the vertical thickness of said flexure is less than the vertical thickness of at least one of a bridge and said first stringer (Fig. 3); and (ii) the flexural modulus of the material of said flexure is less than the flexural modulus of the material of said first stringer (implied by Fig. 3 & p. 1, lines 61-77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add connecting means, as taught by Farrell, to the flex panel of AAPA as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide structural reinforcement while facilitating flexing of the panel.
Regarding claim 18, AAPA as modified teaches a flexure (g, g’ of Farrell) that is adjacent (as in Fig. 4 of Farrell) said first perimeter edge (A of AAPA).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA as modified teaches a flexure (g, g’ of Farrell) that is longitudinally spaced from (as in Fig. 4 of Farrell) said first perimeter edge (A of AAPA).
Conclusion
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