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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a product without any structural recitations, i.e. a computer program. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Claim 1 requires “at least one” of (i) a set of physical component parts (which is patent eligible) and (ii) a set of one or more digital files )which is not patent eligible). Claim 1 does not require both (i) and (ii) but can be construed to include only (ii), which is not patent eligible. Claim 2 also does not add any structural components and is directed towards software per se.
Applicant may consider amending the claim as “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a set of one or more digital files having a file format together with information uniquely associated to control a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) program to generate physical code, the physical code executable….” to overcome this 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bolt N’ Play construction Set from Ideal (1980) from 3rd Party IDS, hereinafter Ideal.
Regarding claim 1, Ideal discloses a kit comprising a set of physical component parts capable of being assembled into a reconfigurable and re-sizable modular storage container.
the set of physical components comprising at least: a side structural member having a height and a length, the side structural member including a series of mounting holes positioned horizontally on an axis extending along the length, the series of mounting holes including at least a first mounting hole at approximately a center of the side structural member, a second mounting hole placed near a first end of the side structural member, and a third mounting hole placed near a second end of the side structural member opposite the first end;
a hinge arm configured to be mounted at adjustable locations via the series of mounting holes; and removable hardware configured to secure an end of the hinge arm.
PNG
media_image1.png
818
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ideal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koczwara (US 2019/0240591).
Regarding claim 2, the references applied above teach all of claim 1, as applied above. Ideal does not teach an .stl file representing a 3D exterior mesh of the physical component.
However, Koczwara is analogous art in regard to a set of modular components and corresponding fasteners, fig. 1 and 4, [0008]. Koczwara teaches an .stl file representing a 3D exterior mesh of the physical component and providing a set of one or more digital files having a file format together with information uniquely associated to control a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) program to generate physical code, the physical code executable in a printer to print a component part of a set of physical component parts [0072-0073] for the purpose of allowing a user the educational benefit of real world design and manufacturing [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the set disclosed by Ideal to include an .stl file for 3-D printing means as taught by Koczwara in order to allow a user to print and manufacture specific parts as needed without excess waste of materials and storage of unnecessary parts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799