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 .
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s continuing patent application number 18/779,797 filed on 8/5/2024.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2025 and 4/7/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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, the substrate 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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, line 15; a deleted text “[.]’ should be in a double-bracket or a straight through line. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8 depending upon the objected claim 1 are also objected.
Claim 9, line 6; a phrase “each have” should be read -- each has --. Correction is required. Claims 10-14 depending upon the objected claim 9 are also objected.
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 1-20 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.
Re claim 1, lines 16 and 18; a citation “said system…the skirting system” is indefinite and confusing because “said system” does not have a proper antecedent basis and it’s unclear whether “said system” is the same “the skirting system”? Clarification is required. Claims 2-8 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Claim 15, lines 15 and 19; having the same issues as mentioned, therefore, claims 15-20 are also rejected.
Re claim 3, line 1; a citation “a horizontal surface” is confusing and indefinite because does not clear that whether this citation is the same “a horizontal surface” cited in claim 1? Clarification is required. Claim 20 having the same issues as mentioned is also rejected.
Re claim 9, line 3; the phrase “which” is confusing and indefinite because does not clear whether “which” is referring to which structure? Clarification is required. Claims 10-14 depending upon the rejected claim 9 are also rejected.
Re claims 12-13, line 1; a citation “said system” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,352,036; over claims 1-19 of US No. 12,044,001; over claims 1-20 of US No. 11,047,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of structures of the instant claims are fully encompassed within the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 9,670,674 to St-Laurent et al. (‘Laurent’).
Re claim 1: Laurent discloses (Fig. 5) a mobile home skirting system 18 comprising: a horizontal surface 34; a first vertical member 32/32 affixed to said horizontal surface 34 along a first edge of the first vertical member 32; a second vertical member 32 affixed to said horizontal surface 34 along a first edge of the second vertical member 32 opposite the first vertical member 32 thereby defining a channel 40 between the first and second vertical members 32/32, wherein the horizontal surface 34 extends outward from both sides (i.e. wherein 34 points to, Fig. 5) of the channel 40 to provide sufficient material for connection to a substrate (i.e. wherein 50 secured to) and wherein the horizontal surface 34, the first vertical member 32 and the second vertical member 3 define a base 30; a first hook-shaped retention edge 52 on a second edge of the first vertical member 32 inwardly oriented toward the channel 40; and a second hook-shaped retention edge 52 on a second edge of the second vertical member 32 inwardly oriented toward the channel 40, wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 52/52 are configured to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 32/32; wherein said system 18 is attached to a substrate by at least one of a mechanical attachment 50 or a chemical attachment, and wherein said system 18 supports at least one of a bottom and a top of the skirting system 18.
Note: A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Re claim 3: wherein a horizontal surface 34 of the skirt base 30 comprises a first lip (i.e. wherein 34 points to) adjacent the first vertical member 36 and a second lip (i.e. on other side of the base) adjacent the second vertical member 36, each extending outward from the channel 40.
Re claim 4: wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 52/52 are configured to provide a substantially rigid friction surface to retain the vertical skirting panel 12.
Re claim 5: wherein said mechanical attachment is selected from the group consisting of: nails 50; screws; bolts; staples; and anchors.
Re claim 7: wherein said vertical skirting panel 12 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements.
Re claim 8: wherein said substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (col. 1, line 14); fiberglass; and a polymer.
Re claim 9: Laurent discloses a mobile home skirting system 18, comprising: a base 30 comprising a first horizontal surface 34 adapted to be attached to a substrate on which a mobile home rests, said base 30 including a first vertical member 32 and a second vertical member 32, wherein a channel 40 is defined between the first vertical member 32 and second vertical member 32, the first and second vertical members 32/32 having inwardly oriented hook-shaped retention edges 52/52 forming an acute angle (i.e. less than 90-degree angle as shown in Fig. 3) toward the channel 40 and that each have a substantially rigid friction surface adapted to retain a vertical skirting panel 16; wherein the hook-shaped retention edges 52/52 of the first and second vertical members 32/32 are adapted to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 32/32, wherein one or more of the vertical members 32/32 comprises an embossed design or pattern (i.e. patterns), and wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 52/52 are configured to provide a substantially rigid friction surface to retain the vertical skirting panel 16.
Re claim 11: wherein said vertical skirting panel 16 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements.
Re claim 12: wherein said system is attached to a substrate by at least one of mechanical attachment 50 or chemical attachment.
Re claim 13: wherein said system supports at least one of a bottom and a top of the skirting system 18.
Re claim 14: wherein said substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (col. 1, line 14); fiberglass; and a polymer.
Re claim 15: Laurent discloses (Fig. 5) a mobile home skirting system 18 comprising: a horizontal surface 34; a first vertical member 32/32 affixed to said horizontal surface 34 along a first edge of the first vertical member 32; a second vertical member 32 affixed to said horizontal surface 34 along a first edge of the second vertical member 32 opposite the first vertical member 32 thereby defining a channel 40 between the first and second vertical members 32/32, wherein the horizontal surface 34 extends outward from both sides (i.e. wherein 34 points to, Fig. 5) of the channel 40 to provide sufficient material for connection to a substrate (i.e. wherein 50 secured to) and wherein the horizontal surface 34, the first vertical member 32 and the second vertical member 3 define a base 30; a first hook-shaped retention edge 52 on a second edge of the first vertical member 32 inwardly oriented toward the channel 40; and a second hook-shaped retention edge 52 on a second edge of the second vertical member 32 inwardly oriented toward the channel 40, wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 52/52 are configured to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 32/32; wherein said system 18 is attached to a substrate by at least one of a mechanical attachment 50 or a chemical attachment; wherein a length of the first lip 52 and a length of the second lip 52 are no less than 20% of the height of the vertical members 32/32 (i.e. as shown in Fig. 5), and wherein said base 30 supports at least one of a bottom and a top of the skirting system 18.
Re claim 16: wherein a horizontal surface 34 of the skirt base 30 comprises a first lip (i.e. wherein 34 points to) adjacent the first vertical member 36 and a second lip (i.e. on other side of the base) adjacent the second vertical member 36, each extending outward from the channel 40.
Re claim 17: wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 52/52 are configured to provide a substantially rigid friction surface to retain the vertical skirting panel 12.
Re claim 18: wherein said vertical skirting panel 16 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements.
Re claim 19: wherein said substrate comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (col. 1, line 14); fiberglass; and a polymer.
Re claim 20: wherein a horizontal surface 34 of the skirt base 30 comprises a first lip (i.e. wherein 34 points to) adjacent the first vertical member 36 and a second lip (i.e. on other side of the base) adjacent the second vertical member 36, each extending outward from the channel 40.
Alternatively, claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 8,739,483 to Bilge.
Re claims 1, 4-6: Bilge discloses a mobile home skirting system 38 comprising: a horizontal surface 44; a first vertical member 50 affixed to said horizontal surface 44 along a first edge of the first vertical member 50; a second vertical member 50 affixed to said horizontal surface 44 along a first edge of the second vertical member 50 opposite the first vertical member 50 thereby defining a channel (wherein 54 points to, Fig. 2) between the first and second vertical members 50/50, wherein the horizontal surface 44 extends outward from both sides of the channel to provide sufficient material for connection to a substrate and wherein the horizontal surface 44, the first vertical member 50 and the second vertical member 50 define a base 40; a first hook-shaped retention edge 58 on a second edge of the first vertical member 50 inwardly oriented toward the channel (wherein 54 points to); and a second hook-shaped retention edge 58 on a second edge of the second vertical member 50 inwardly oriented toward the channel, wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 58/58 are configured to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 54; wherein said system is attached to a substrate 14 by at least one of a mechanical attachment 70 (Fig. 3) or a chemical attachment; wherein said mechanical attachment 70 is selected from the group consisting of: nails; screws (col. 9, line 4); bolts; staples; and anchors; wherein said chemical attachment is selected from the group consisting of: glue, cement, and epoxy. Note, claim 6 depending upon claim 4, the citation is drawn to an alternative option, e.g. “or chemical attachment”; therefore, it’s not necessary to meet.
Re claim 2: wherein the mobile home skirting base comprises a single extruded polymer. The Examiner notes that the language "extruded polymer" is considered to be product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113 and 2173.05(p). In col. 8, line 13-17, the mobile home skirting system 38 is extruded and formed as a single, one piece, unitary member from polyethylene; therefore meeting the product-by-process limitation.
Re claim 3: wherein a horizontal surface 44 of the skirt base comprises a first lip 66 adjacent the first vertical member 50 and a second lip 66 adjacent the second vertical member 50, each extending outward from the channel (wherein 51 points to).
Re claim 7: wherein said vertical skirting panel 12/16 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements(Fig. 3).
Re claim 8: comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (e.g. aluminum, col. 8, line 20-21); fiberglass; and a polymer.
Re claim 9: Bilge discloses a mobile home skirting system 38, comprising: a base 40 comprising a first horizontal surface 66 adapted to be attached to a substrate on which a mobile home rests, said base 40 including a first vertical member 50 and a second vertical member 50, wherein a channel (wherein 54 points to in Fig. 2) is defined between the first vertical member 50 and second vertical member 50, the first and second vertical members 50/50 having inwardly oriented hook-shaped retention edges 58/58 forming an acute angle (e.g. angle formed from 52/58, which less than 90-degrees) toward the channel and that each have a substantially rigid friction surface adapted to retain a vertical skirting panel 16; wherein the hook-shaped retention edges 58/58 of the first and second vertical members 50/50 are adapted to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 50/50; and wherein one or more of the vertical members comprises an embossed design (see Fig. 8) or pattern.
Re claim 10: wherein the mobile home skirting base comprises a single extruded polymer. The Examiner notes that the language "extruded polymer" is considered to be product-by-process language. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113 and 2173.05(p). In col. 8, line 13-17, the mobile home skirting system 38 is extruded and formed as a single, one piece, unitary member from polyethylene; therefore meeting the product-by-process limitation.
Re claim 11: wherein said vertical skirting panel 12/16 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements(Fig. 3).
Re claim 12: wherein said system is attached to a substrate 14 by at least one of a mechanical attachment 70 (Fig. 3) or a chemical attachment.
Re claim 13: wherein said system supports at least one of a bottom and a top of the skirting system (Fig. 3).
Re claim 14: comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (e.g. aluminum, col. 8, line 20-21); fiberglass; and a polymer.
Re claim 15: Bilge discloses a mobile home skirting system 38 comprising: a horizontal surface 44, a first vertical member 50 affixed to said horizontal surface 44 along a first edge of the first vertical member 50; a second vertical member 50 affixed to said horizontal surface 44 along a first edge of the second vertical member 50 opposite the first vertical member 50 thereby defining a channel (wherein 54 points to, Fig. 2) between the first and second vertical members 50/50, wherein the horizontal surface 44 extends outward from both sides 66/66 of the channel to provide sufficient material for connection to a substrate and wherein the horizontal surface 44, the first vertical member 50 and the second vertical member 50 define a base 40; a first hook-shaped retention edge 58 on a second edge of the first vertical member 50 inwardly oriented toward the channel; and a second hook-shaped retention edge 58 on a second edge of the second vertical member 50 inwardly oriented toward the channel, and wherein the first and second hooked shaped retention edges 58/58 are configured to secure a vertical skirting panel through direct physical pressure exerted by said first and second vertical members 50/50, and wherein said system is attached to a substrate 14 by at least one of a mechanical attachment 70 or a chemical attachment; and wherein a length of the first lip 66 and a length of the second lip 66 are no less than 20% of the height (see Fig. 2, at least more than or equal to 335) of the vertical members 50/50.
Re claim 16: wherein a horizontal surface 44 of the skirt base comprises a first lip 66 adjacent the first vertical member 50 and a second lip 66 adjacent the second vertical member 50, each extending outward from the channel (wherein 51 points to).
Re claim 17: wherein the first and second hook-shaped retention edges 58/58 are configured to provide a substantially rigid friction surface to retain the vertical skirting panel 12/16.
Re claim 18: wherein said vertical skirting panel 12/16 prevents scratches from one of natural or artificial elements (Fig. 3).
Re claim 19: comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: wood; metal (e.g. aluminum, col. 8, line 20-21); and a polymer.
Re claim 20: wherein a horizontal surface 44 of the skirt base comprises a first lip 66 adjacent the first vertical member 50 and a second lip 66 adjacent the second vertical member 50, each extending outward from the channel (wherein 54 points to).
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) 2, 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 9,670,674 to Laurent.
Re claims 2 and 10: Laurent discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the mobile home skirting base comprises a single extruded polymer. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different materials for the base, e.g. polymer; in order to optimize a lightweight for the base.
Re claim 6: Laurent discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein said chemical attachment is selected from the group consisting of: glue, cement, and epoxy. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different materials for the attachment means in order to facilitate an assembly need.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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 http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
100
143
media_image1.png
Greyscale