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 Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, “the screw elements were of different sizes” should be “the screw elements are of different sizes”.
In claim 5 “wherein and a grille ring” should be “wherein a grille ring”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.(US8186902) in view of Tabibnia(US10415191).
[claim 1] Lee teaches an adjustable universal support(10), comprising a top base(50), an adjusting portion(20,30), a heightening member(16), and a bottom base(14); dividing pieces are snap-fitted to the top base(not shown, see C3 L63-65), a bottom end(54) of the top base is disposed within the adjusting portion and is threadedly connected to the adjusting portion, a bottom end(bottom end of 20) of the adjusting portion is disposed within the heightening member and is threadedly connected to the heightening member, and a bottom end of the heightening member is integrally connected to the bottom base; the adjusting portion comprises a plurality of screw elements(20,30) of gradual change in size sleeved in sequence, the screw elements are of different sizes from each other(fig 1), and any two adjacent screw elements are in threaded connection, and the adjusting portion is telescopic along the axial direction of the screw elements; a bottom end of the screw element located on an upper side of adjacent screw elements is equipped with a snap fastener(80), and the screw element located on a lower side is provided with a straight surface groove(92) to fit with the snap fastener. Lee however may not teach that the bottom end of the heightening member is threadedly connected to the bottom base, or that the screw element located at a lower end of the adjusting portion is screwed counterclockwise to the heightening member, and said heightening member is screwed counterclockwise to the bottom base. With regards to the bottom end of the heightening member being threadedly connected to the bottom base, as noted above, Lee teaches the use of threaded connections to join parts of the adjustable universal support to each other. It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to threadedly connect the heightening member to the bottom base, as this would allow the bottom base to be disassembled from the heightening member, potentially making it easier to transport or store the device.
With regards to the screw element and heightening member being screwed counterclockwise, Tabibnia teaches a similar adjustable universal support, and further teaches the use of reverse threads on adjusting member to allow for easier adjustment(C7 L5-21), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use reverse threading on the lower end of the adjusting portion and heightening member, such that the adjusting portion and heightening member would be attached by screwing counterclockwise relative the heightening member and bottom base respectively, as this would merely be using known elements for their known function.
[claim 4] Lee teaches an adjustable universal support as detailed above, however Lee may not teach a cross-shaped support member provided at an upper part inside the heightening member. The use of cross-shaped support members to provide additional strengthening and rigidity is well known, with Tabibnia teaching the use of cross-shaped support members on upper parts of heightening members(2000, fig 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a cross-shaped support member in the upper part of the heightening member of Lee, as this would act to strengthen the device.
[claim 5] wherein a grille ring(60) is provided on an outside of the top base.
[claim 6] wherein a screwing portion(protrusions on upper portion of 20) is provided at an outer upper part of the screw element located at the lower end of the adjusting portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Tabibnia (US10415191) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Applicant discloses that the support of the present invention is to be used for a multitude of applications, including landscape architecture, and roof gardens(See Specification pg 1). Tabibnia is in the same field of endeavor, being directed to supports for planting systems, i.e. gardens(see C1 L49-61).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, combining the support of Lee with the screw thread arrangement of Tabibnia could result in easier adjustment of the device, as detailed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632