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 26-34 are 35-43 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 35-43. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 26-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penning (6,851,661) in view of D'Alto (5,437,590).
Claim 26, Penning discloses a protective field screen system, comprising: a screen frame system (figure 1; column 3, lines 7-67 and column 4, lines 1-6) comprising:
a screen frame (frame 12 including vertical 14, 16 and horizontal 18, 20 members); and
a screen (panel 26) coupled to the screen frame;
a base frame (38 and spike(s) 36) configured to be disposed on a supporting surface (on the ground surface); and
resilient members (springs 34), the screen frame (12) coupled to the base frame (38; figure 4) by way of the resilient members (34), and the resilient members configured to deform to enable movement of the screen frame relative to the base frame.
Penning shows the resilient members can be formed of a spring. Penning discloses the claimed device with the exception of the resilient members being formed of an elastomeric material. However, as disclosed by D’Alto (claim 10) it is known in the art to form springs of elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a material for Pennings’s springs given that D’Alto teaches such is an appropriate material for form the spring(s).
Claim 27, Penning shows the a planar screen frame (as best this limitation is understood planar screen frame would be frame 12 which forms a planar surface within its inner boundaries) configured to support the netting (26) of the protective screen; and
a screen frame arm member (14 or 16) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame (12), wherein a resilient member (34) of the resilient members is disposed between the screen frame arm member (14 or 16) and the base frame (38).
Claim 28, Penning shows wherein the screen frame comprises:
a planar screen frame (12) configured to support the screen (26); and
a first screen frame arm member (14) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame, the first screen frame arm member (14)comprising a first portion that extends on a first side of the planar screen frame and a second portion that extends on a second side of the planar screen frame, wherein the base frame comprises:
a first base frame foot member (plate 38; figure 4; Note: the base plate may be positioned parallel or perpendicular to the screen) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame, the first base frame foot member (right segment of plate 38) comprising a first portion that extends on the first side of the planar screen frame and a second portion (left segment of plate 38) that extends on the second side of the planar screen frame,
wherein a first resilient member (34; figure 4) of the resilient members is disposed between the first portion of the first screen frame arm member and the first portion of the first base frame foot member, and
wherein a second resilient member (34; figure 4) of the resilient members is disposed between the second portion of the first screen frame arm member and the second portion of the first base frame foot member.
Claim 29, note the rejection of claim 28, the second screen frame arm member (16), a first base frame foot member (plate 38; figure 4; Note: the base plate may be positioned parallel or perpendicular to the screen) positioned on the opposite position to the first base frame foot member and a second resilient member (34; figure 4).
Claim 30, Penning shows the resilient members (34) are configured to deform to enable pivoting of the screen frame relative to the base frame.
Claim 31, Penning shows the screen frame is formed of multiple screen frame members formed of tubing and coupled to one another by way of fasteners (as shown in figures 1 and 4 the frame members are connected via corner pieces 22 and T-shaped connectors 30).
Claim 32, Penning as modified above discloses the claimed device with the exception of the resilient members comprising a hollow, oval-shaped member. It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed hollow, oval-shaped resilient members was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 33, Penning shows the netting (26) comprises a flexible mesh (column 3, lines 45-50).
Claim 34, Penning shows the screen frame (frame 12 including vertical 14, 16 and horizontal 18, 20 members) defines an opening that is covered by the netting (26) of the protective screen.
Claim 35, Penning discloses a protective field screen system, comprising: a screen frame (figure 1; column 3, lines 7-67 and column 4, lines 1-6) configured to support a screen (26) comprising:
a screen frame (frame 12 including vertical 14, 16 and horizontal 18, 20 members); and
a base frame (38 and spike(s) 36) configured to be disposed on a supporting surface (on the ground surface); and
resilient members (springs 34), the screen frame (12) coupled to the base frame (38; figure 4) by way of the resilient members (34), and the resilient members configured to deform to enable movement of the screen frame relative to the base frame.
Penning shows the resilient members can be formed of a spring. Penning discloses the claimed device with the exception of the resilient members being formed of an elastomeric material. However, as disclosed by D’Alto (claim 10) it is known in the art to form springs of elastomeric material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used such a material for Pennings’s springs given that D’Alto teaches such is an appropriate material for form the spring(s).
Claim 36, Penning shows the screen frame comprises: a planar screen frame (14 or 16) configured to support the screen (26); and a screen frame arm member (18) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame 14 or 16), wherein a resilient member (34; figure 4) of the resilient members is disposed between the screen frame arm member and the base frame (note the rejection of claim 28).
Claim 37, Penning shows wherein the screen frame comprises:
a planar screen frame (12) configured to support the screen (26); and
a first screen frame arm member (14) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame, the first screen frame arm member (14) comprising a first portion that is configured to extend on a first side of the planar screen frame and a second portion that extends on a second side of the planar screen frame, wherein the base frame comprises:
a first base frame foot member (plate 38; figure 4; Note: the base plate may be positioned parallel or perpendicular to the screen) oriented transverse to the planar screen frame, the first base frame foot member (right segment of plate 38) comprising a first portion that is configured to extend on the first side of the planar screen frame and a second portion (left segment of plate 38) that extends on the second side of the planar screen frame,
wherein a first resilient member (34; figure 4) of the resilient members is that is configured to be disposed between the first portion of the first screen frame arm member and the first portion of the first base frame foot member, and
wherein a second resilient member (34; figure 4) of the resilient members is that is configured to be disposed between the second portion of the first screen frame arm member and the second portion of the first base frame foot member.
Claim 38, note the rejection of claim 37, the second screen frame arm member (16), a first base frame foot member (plate 38; figure 4; Note: the base plate may be positioned parallel or perpendicular to the screen) positioned on the opposite position to the first base frame foot member and a second resilient member (34; figure 4).
Claim 39, Penning shows the resilient members (34) are configured to deform to enable pivoting of the screen frame relative to the base frame.
Claim 40, Penning shows the screen frame is formed of multiple screen frame members formed of tubing and coupled to one another by way of fasteners (as shown in figures 1 and 4 the frame members are connected via corner pieces 22 and T-shaped connectors 30).
Claim 41, Penning as modified above discloses the claimed device with the exception of the resilient members comprising a hollow, oval-shaped member. It has been held that a change in shape and/or form is generally recognized as a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed hollow, oval-shaped resilient members was significant. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 42, Penning shows the netting (26) comprises a flexible mesh (column 3, lines 45-50).
Claim 43, Penning shows the screen frame (frame 12 including vertical 14, 16 and horizontal 18, 20 members) defines an opening that is covered by the netting (26) of the protective screen.
Claim 44, Penning shows the screen (26) is coupled to the screen frame (12), and the screen frame (12) is coupled to the base frame (38) by way of the resilient members (34; figures 1 and 4).
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 24-30, 32-39, 41-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,522 (‘522). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose a protective field screen system, comprising: a screen frame system comprising: a screen frame; and a screen coupled to the screen frame; a base frame configured to be disposed on a supporting surface; and resilient members, the screen frame coupled to the base frame by way of the resilient members which are formed of elastomeric material, and the resilient members configured to deform to enable movement of the screen frame relative to the base frame. Claims 24-30, 32-39, 41-44 of the present application read on claims 1-19 of ‘522.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nazato (6,354,968) (figure 2); Elder et al (7,198,580) (figure 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MITRA ARYANPOUR whose telephone number is (571) 272-4405. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon, Thurs, Fri 8:00am to 4:00pm, Wed 8:00-2:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached on 571-272-4463. 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.
/MITRA ARYANPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/ma/
8 August 2026
Prosecution Insights