DETAILED ACTION
Drawings/Specification
The drawings filed 06/11/26 are not entered. The replacement drawing contains several features not previously disclosed in the original filing. According to the Request for Reconsideration, an amendment to the Specification has been made, however, no Specification has been filed. In any event, any amendment drawn to the new reference numbers in the replacement drawings would also constitute new matter.
Thus, the original drawings continue to be objected. As previously indicated, the elected Drawings of Fig. 22A-22B are completely inscrutable and provide no detail of the actual extrusion member (Fig. 22A), nor any detail of how the extrusion members are interconnected to form the frame (Fig. 22B).
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 1-16 and 18-19 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.
Independent claims 1, 18, and 19, each recite a “first profile adapted to accommodate and retail a silicon edge of a corresponding SEG display fabric…” and a “second profile adapted to accommodate and clamp onto a cooperating member of the slatwall bracket…” which is indefinite. A “profile” is simply a shape that does not provide any structural detail. Their adaption to “accommodate” either a silicon edge of an SEG display fabric or a slatwall bracket, does not lend any structural detail, since these elements do not have any clearly discernable structures (The Specification discloses a variety of different “slatwalls” 0004-0006, so a “slatwall” or more specifically a “profile” adapted to accommodate some part of a “slatwall” is not defined). The extrusion member is only defined in the claims as having ambiguous “profiles” (shapes) which are intended and configured to “accommodate” other structurally indefinite features.
In respect to claim 7, the applicant further recites a “slot” which conflicts with the “twin slots” of claim 1. It is unclear whether the recited “slot” is a member of the “twin slots” or a separate slot.
Essentially, the applicant’s representative has elected an embodiment which only describes, in any detail, the application of an array of twin slots to the plurality of extrusion members and the general concept of having a second SEG display attached to the top peripheral edge (with no details of interconnection). The extrusion member itself (and its first profile “groove” and second profile “slot”) are not shown in any detail or described in the Specification such that a detailed comparison could be made to the prior art. Several elements in Figures 22A (all not numbered and shown in poor quality could conceivably fulfill theses claimed accommodations). Figure 22A also does not reference any previous cross-sectional detailed arrangement from previous Figures.
This is not a complete or comprehensive listing of 35 USC 112 issues. Compliance with 35 USC 112 is the responsibility of the applicant.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 13, 18, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frey (US 8,015,736).
In respect to claims 1, 2, 5, and 7, the structure claimed is impossible to ascertain for the reasons detailed in the 35 USC 112 above, however, as best can be construed by the Examiner, Frey discloses a display frame assembly comprising a plurality of extrusion members 24 which are attached to a neighboring extrusion member to form a display frame (Fig. 16); a first extrusion member 24 provides a peripheral edge of a first face of the display frame; the first extrusion member 24 has a “first profile” (groove) 40 adapted to accommodate and retail a silicon edge 66 of a corresponding SEG display fabric 56 [although Frey does not explicitly disclose the edge as silicon, it is the same type of configuration as a SEG display, and the groove is functionality capable of holding a silicon edge of a SEG display]; a “second profile” (slot) 80 adapted to accommodate and clamp a “slatwall” [a “slatwall” is not structurally defined, and at the very least, the slot 80 may accommodate some portion of a slatwall] (Fig. 11); and at least one array of “twin slots” 70/76 (Fig. 11). Frey discloses another embodiment which comprises further “slots” and “grooves”, wherein one side of the assembly can be construed as the “first profile” and the “second profile” (e.g. left side) and the right side can be construed as the “twin slots” (Fig. 15).
In respect to claim 9, Frey discloses a “first profile” functionally capable of accommodating a silicon edge. The actual fabric being “high-resolution fabric, a polyester” is irrelevant to the display frame which is claimed. The display frame is capable of accommodating the claimed high-resolution fabric in the “first profile” (groove).
In respect to claim 13, Frey disclose the display frame above; the recitation “wherein the display frame is attached to a second SEG display frame” is intended use, as claimed. The scope of independent claim 1 is to a “display frame”, not a combination of two display frames, or method of combining said frames.
In respect to claims 18 and 19, Frey discloses the claimed subject matter for the reasons stated above.
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey (US 8,015,736).
Frey substantially discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above, but does not disclose a specific material for the extrusion member (e.g. aluminum), however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to selection aluminum as a suitable material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Aluminum is an extremely well known material in frames.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The replacement drawings and substitute specification (non-filed) are not entered, for reasons of new matter.
The 35 USC 112 and Drawing objections are sustained.
The slight amendments to the claims do not overcome the 35 USC 112 issues, nor do they distinguish from the prior art, as best can be determined.
It is exceedingly difficult to compare prior art to elected Figures which scarcely show the elected invention. As is clear from the replacement drawings, a substantially amount of information is missing from the elected Figures that would facilitate one of ordinary skill in the art at understanding the invention.
Arguments that the first profile “comprising a groove” and second profile “comprising a slot” in the claims are different from the profiles of Frey is not persuasive. The extremely broad and ambiguous claim language such as “adapted to accommodate and retail a silicon edge of a SEG fabric” and “adapted to accommodate and clamp onto a cooperating member of the slatwall bracket” further muddle the claim language and do not provide a clear and distinct structure. The first and second profiles of Frey (which contain slots/grooves) are capable of accommodating such items (which are not even positively recited structures in the claims).
New matter (replacement drawings and spec) would be needed to understand and make the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. Any further complications in the structure which are apparently not disclosed by Frey cannot be ascertained without the applicant provided a clear and definite invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, 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.
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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights