DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the reference signs mentioned in the description with respect to Figure 10. Figure 10 is devoid of any reference numerals. 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. 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.
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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. (US 12,134,886 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are fully encompassed by claims 1-9 or employ obvious alternative descriptive language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by HANLEY (US 3,811,209).
HANLEY discloses an adjustable frame as depicted in FIG. 1. Reference numerals and/or FIG. numbers of HANLEY have been parenthetically inserted into a portion of claim 1 to map the claim limitation correspondence:
a plurality of rigid base members (14 & 16); a plurality of slidable corner members (10 & 12); and a plurality of nut (28)-and-bolt (26) fasteners (FIG. 3), wherein each of the slidable corner members includes one or more slots (18 & 20), wherein each of the nut-and-bolt fasteners includes a bolt that extends (FIG. 3) through one or the one or more slots and one of the plurality of rigid base members
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over HANLEY (US 3,811,209).
Claim 2 specifies “a water permeable filtration material attached the adjustable frame and covering the interior cavity”, HANLEY discloses the attachment of a work piece at column 2, lines 40-55 and col. 1, lines 1-30. It is submitted that the fabric work piece of HANLEY meets the limitations of claim 2. Alternatively, the work piece of claim 2 is seen to meet the functional intended use as a “filtration” material, because one skilled in the art would have obviously appreciated that water passing therethrough would be capable of being filtered as it passes.
Regarding claim 4, one skilled in the art would have readily appreciated the fact that “at least a portion” of the work piece would be wrapped around the frame as suggested at col. 3, lines 45-55.
HANLEY is silent with respect to claim 5 which specifies, “wherein the water permeable filtration material comprises one or more of paper, ceramic, polypropylene, acrylic fiber, glass fiber, polyester, spun cellulose, and rayon.” It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a work piece made of a fabric made of at least one of polypropylene, polyester, and rayon, since these are conventionally known fabric materials.
HANLEY is silent with respect to claim 6 which specifies, “wherein the water permeable filtration material is has one or more of double-seaming, a built-in scrim, or multiple layers.” It is submitted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a work piece made of a fabric that includes one or more of double-seaming, a built-in scrim, or multiple layers, since these are conventionally known fabric constructions.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, “is/has” should probably be --has--. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7-11 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 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since it discloses structurally similar devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT JAMES POPOVICS whose telephone number is (571) 272-1164. The examiner can normally be reached from 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Joseph Del Sole can be reached at (571) 272-1130. 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.
/ROBERT J POPOVICS/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1763
