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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,561 (561). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application are found in claim 1 of the cited patent.
Regarding Claim 1: All the limitations of the instant application’s Claim 1 are included in Claim 1 of Patent 561. Specifically, Claim 1 of Patent 561 recites: a stabilizing device, comprising: a shell; a base located on a bottom portion of the shell, the base configured to contact a ground surface; a first face extending at an angle with respect to the base, the first face comprising a first upper ledge comprising a first textured surface and a first lower section comprising a second textured surface; a second face extending at an angle with respect to the base and the first face, the second face comprising a second upper ledge comprising a third textured surface and a second lower section comprising a fourth textured surface, wherein the first face and the second face are configured to support at least one object--.
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(s) 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 2022/0282502 to Rashid (Rashid).
PNG
media_image1.png
1372
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device, comprising: a shell (See Annotated Fig. A); a base (See Annotated Fig. A) located on a bottom portion of the shell, the base configured to contact a ground surface; a first face (See Annotated Fig. A) extending at an angle with respect to the base, the first face comprising a first upper ledge (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a first textured surface (See Annotated Fig. A) and a first lower section (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a second textured surface (See Annotated Fig. A); and a second face (See Annotated Fig. A) extending at an angle with respect to the base and the first face, the second face comprising a second upper ledge (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a third textured surface (note that the textured surfaces are the same as the first face but on the opposite face/side) and a second lower section (See Annotated Fig. A) comprising a fourth textured surface (note that the textured surfaces are the same as the first face but on the opposite face/side), wherein the first face and the second face are configured to support at least one object.
Regarding Claim 2: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 1, further comprising: a foot (See Annotated Fig. A) located along the base; and a foam rubber pad (See Annotated Fig. A – See also para. 0108 of Rashid) removably coupled to the foot.
Regarding Claim 3: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 2, wherein the foam rubber pad (See Annotated Fig. A) is arranged and configured to create a suction-like seal with the ground surface when the foam rubber pad is compressed, and wherein the foam rubber pad is arranged and configured to slide along the ground surface when the foam rubber pad is not compressed. (See also para. 0108 of Rashid)
Regarding Claim 9: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 2, further comprising: a first left upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and a first right upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced from the first left upper ledge portion; a first left lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and a first right lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced from the first left lower section portion; a second left upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and a second right upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced from the second left upper ledge portion; and a second left lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and a second right lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) spaced from the second left lower section portion.
Regarding Claim 10: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 9, further comprising an internal support structure (160, 162, 163, 166, 168 – See Figures 16 and 18) located within the shell, the internal support structure comprising a bolster (160, 162, 163, 166, 168) configured to provide support to at least one of the first left lower section portion, the first right lower section portion, the second left lower section portion, and the second right lower section portion.
Regarding Claim 12: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 9, wherein the first left upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the first right upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) define a first angle (note the angle of the respective portions with respect to the base) with respect to the base, wherein the first left lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the first right lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) define a second angle (note the angle of the respective portions with respect to the base) with respect to the base, wherein the second left upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the second right upper ledge portion (See Annotated Fig. A) define a third angle (note the angle of the respective portions with respect to the base) with respect to the base, and wherein the second left lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) and the second right lower section portion (See Annotated Fig. A) define a fourth angle (note the angle of the respective portions with respect to the base) with respect to the base.
Regarding Claim 14: Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 9, further comprising: a first middle portion (See Annotated Fig. A) located along the first face and between the first left upper ledge portion and the first right upper ledge portion and between the first left lower section portion and the first right lower section portion; and a second middle portion (See Annotated Fig. A) located along the second face, and between the second left upper ledge portion and the second right upper ledge portion and between the second left lower section portion and the second right lower section portion.
Regarding Claim 17: Note that the embodiment shown in Figure 36 (Also shown as Annotated Fig. B for convenience) maps to Claim 1 similar to the embodiment shown in Annotated Fig. A. Only in Annotated fig. B / Figure 36, the lower portion is removed and replaced.
Here, Rashid discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 1, comprising a gap (See Annotated Fig. B) located along the base, the gap extending from the first face to the second face, the gap arranged and configured to receive a metal roof seam.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No. 2021/0180342 to Rashid (Rashid ‘342).
PNG
media_image2.png
893
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device, comprising: a shell (See Annotated Fig. B); a base (See Annotated Fig. B) located on a bottom portion of the shell, the base configured to contact a ground surface; a first face (See Annotated Fig. B) extending at an angle with respect to the base, the first face comprising a first upper ledge (See Annotated Fig. B) comprising a first textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B) and a first lower section (See Annotated Fig. B) comprising a second textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B); and a second face (See Annotated Fig. B) extending at an angle with respect to the base and the first face, the second face comprising a second upper ledge (See Annotated Fig. B) comprising a third textured surface (note that the textured surfaces are the same as the first face but on the opposite face/side) and a second lower section (See Annotated Fig. B) comprising a fourth textured surface (note that the textured surfaces are the same as the first face but on the opposite face/side), wherein the first face and the second face are configured to support at least one object.
Regarding Claim 2: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 1, further comprising: a foot (See Annotated Fig. B) located along the base; and a foam rubber pad (See Annotated Fig. B – See also para. 0086 of Rashid ‘342) removably coupled to the foot.
Regarding Claim 4: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 2, further comprising a plate (See Annotated Fig. B) mechanically coupled to the foot, the plate located between the foot and the foam rubber pad, wherein the foam rubber pad is removably coupled to the plate via a hook and loop connection (See Annotated Fig. B).
Regarding Claim 5: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 4, wherein the hook and loop connection comprises a hook connection (See Annotated Fig. B) injection molded into the plate and a loop connection (See Annotated Fig. B) adhesively coupled to the foam rubber pad.
Regarding Claim 6: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 1, wherein the first textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), the second textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), the third textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), and the fourth textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B) each comprise a plurality of raised portions.
Regarding Claim 7: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 6, wherein the first textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), the second textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), the third textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B), and the fourth textured surface (See Annotated Fig. B) comprise substantially the same pattern.
Regarding Claim 8: Rashid ‘342 discloses a stabilizing device of Claim 6, wherein the first textured surface, the second textured surface, the third textured surface, and the fourth textured surface comprise different patterns (See para. 0077, last 25 lines discussing shapes and patterns of surface 61 and para. 0078, last 25 lines discussing shapes and patterns of surface 63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 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.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
None of the cited prior art, considered alone or in combination, discloses or teaches:
The stabilizing device of Claim 10, wherein the bolster extends from the foot to an internal portion of at least one of the first left lower section portion, the first right lower section portion, the second left lower section portion, and the second right lower section portion;
The stabilizing device of Claim 12, wherein the first angle is about 39 degrees, the second angle is about 15 degrees, the third angle is about 50 degrees, and the fourth angle is about 25 degrees;
The stabilizing device of Claim 14, further comprising a first recessed surface located within the first middle portion and a second recessed surface located within the second middle portion;
The stabilizing device of Claim 17, wherein the gap comprises a first gap, the stabilizing device further comprising: a second gap located along the base, the second gap extending from the first face to the second face, the second gap spaced from the first gap; and a third gap located along the base, the third gap extending from the first face to the second face, the third gap spaced from the first gap and the second gap, wherein the first gap is located between the second gap and the third gap such that the first gap, the second gap, and the third gap are arranged and configured to receive a metal roof having a 12-inch seam and a metal roof having a 16-inch seam; or
The stabilizing device of Claim 2, wherein the foot comprises a first foot, the stabilizing device further comprising: a second foot spaced from the first foot along a first direction; a third foot spaced from the second foot along the first direction; a fourth foot spaced from the third foot along the first direction; a fifth foot spaced from the first foot along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; a sixth foot spaced from the fifth foot along the first direction and spaced from the second foot along the second direction; a seventh foot spaced from the sixth foot along the first direction and spaced from the third foot along the second direction; and an eighth foot spaced from the seventh foot along the first direction and spaced from the fourth foot along the second direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the references used in this rejection and those cited in the PTO-892, the following references are very relevant to the claimed invention: US 2018/0334814, 11866996.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERET C MCNICHOLS whose telephone number is (571)270-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00 - 5:00 (Eastern).
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 571-272-4797. 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.
ERET C. MCNICHOLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/ERET C MCNICHOLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632