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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on August 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 6, 2026.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 23, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 23, 2025. These drawings are objected to as follows:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features of claim 5 (emphasis in bold italics added, infra) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the slit includes (1) a first slit that prevents the jacket from moving in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that has one end which abuts on a first side of the jacket and the other end which abuts on a second side of the jacket, the second side being adjacent to the first side and (2) a second slit that prevents the jacket from moving in the first direction and in a direction opposite to the second direction and that has one end which abuts on the first side of the jacket and the other end which abuts on a third side of the jacket, the third side being opposite to the second side.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to page 29 (line 23), the term “bag 4” should be changed to the term --bag 53-- in order to remain consistent with the other portions of the specification and Figure 6.
(ii) With regard to page 29 (line 24), the term “support plate 1’ ” should be changed to the term –support plate 52-- in order to remain consistent with the other portions of the specification and Figure 6.
(iii) The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter (see claim 5). See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required to provide antecedence within the specification:
(1) a first slit that prevents the jacket from moving in a first direction and in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction and that has one end which abuts on a first side of the jacket and the other end which abuts on a second side of the jacket, the second side being adjacent to the first side and (2) a second slit that prevents the jacket from moving in the first direction and in a direction opposite to the second direction and that has one end which abuts on the first side of the jacket and the other end which abuts on a third side of the jacket, the third side being opposite to the second side.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE -202009005924-U1.
As per claim 1, DE -202009005924-U1 discloses a record support plate (e.g., 1) (see Figs. 1, 2) having a size corresponding to a 12-inch disc (e.g., see p. 3, ll. 22-24 of the enclosed translation “17 cm, 25 cm or 30 cm vinyl records” (30 cm equates to 12 inch vinyl record), wherein: a slit (e.g., 6) for fixing a jacket for a 10-inch disc, a jacket for a 7-inch disc, or a jacket for a compact disc (e.g., 11 and 12) is formed in said record support plate (e.g. 1); and the slit (e.g., 6) enables fixation of the jacket to said record support plate without folding of said record support plate.
As per claim 7, wherein: a circular hole (e.g., at the endpoints 7, 8 or slit 6, as dep[cited in Fig. 1) is formed at one end or at each of both ends of the slit (e.g., 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE -202009005924-U1 in view of JP 04-068861 U.
See the description of DE -202009005924-U1, supra.
DE -202009005924-U1 does not expressly show the slit configurations as set forth in claim 4.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
As per claim 4, JP 04-068861 U discloses an analogous record media protector, in the same field of endeavor as DE -202009005924-U1, wherein, as per claim 4, a corresponding holding media slit includes (1) a first slit (e.g., formed by tongue piece (9)) that prevents the record media (e.g. F) from moving in a first direction (down direction of Fig. 1 of JP 04-068861 U ) and that has both ends which abut on a first side of the record media (F) and (2) a second slit (e.g., formed by tongue piece (7)) that prevents the record media (F) from moving in a second direction (right direction of Fig. 1 of JP 04-068861 U ) perpendicular to the first direction and that has both ends which abut on a second side (e.g. left-side) of the record media (F), the second side being adjacent to the first side (see Fig. 1 of JP 04-068861 U), and (3) a third slit (e.g., tongue piece (10)) that prevents the record media (F) from moving in a direction (upper direction as depicted in Fig. 1) opposite to the first direction (lower direction as depicted in Fig. 1) and that has both ends which abut on a third side (e.g. upper side of record media (F)) of the record media (F), the third side being opposite to the first side – see Fig. 1 of JP 04-068861 U.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by JP 04-068861 U, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the slit configuration as set forth in claim 4, to the record support plate slit of DE -202009005924-U1, as taught by JP 04-068861 U in order to advantageously enhance the attachment of the small vinyl record (7-inch, 10-inch) and/or compact disc with the record support plate,
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE -202009005924-U1.
See the description of DE -202009005924-U1, supra.
As per claim 6, DE -202009005924-U1 remains silent with regard to wherein: a shape in a plan view of said record support plate is a square shape or a rectangular shape in which a longitudinal length is 280 mm or more and 320 mm or less and a transverse length is 280 mm or more and 320 mm or less.
However, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s), particularly in light of the teachings of DE -202009005924-U1 as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation. Moreover, by providing the size of the record support pate in the range set forth in claim 6, it would have been advantageous to support the 12-inch vinyl record as taught by DE -202009005924-U1.
MPEP § 2144.05(II) recognizes that such a rejection may indeed be made when appropriate. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). However, for such a rejection to be proper, a “particular parameter must be first recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” MPEP § 2144.05 (II. B.), citing In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA) 1977) (the claimed wastewater treatment device had a tank volume to contractor area of 0.12 gal./sq. ft. The prior art did not recognize that treatment capacity is a function of the tank volume to contractor ratio, and therefore the parameter optimized was not recognized in the art to be a result-effective variable.).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE -202009005924-U1 in view of Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1).
See the description of DE -202009005924-U1, supra.
As per claim 8, DE -202009005924-U1 remains silent with regard to providing a record jacket, comprising: at least one sleeve capable of accommodating a 12-inch disc; with the record support plate being accommodated in the sleeve.
As per claim 9, DE -202009005924-U1 remains silent with regard to a record product, comprising: a record jacket recited in claim 8; the jacket which is fixed to the record support plate; and the 10-inch disc, the 7-inch disc, or the compact disc which is accommodated in the jacket.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1), as per claim 8, discloses a record jacket (e.g., see Figs. 1-4), comprising: at least one sleeve capable of accommodating a vinyl record (including the 12-inch disc of DE -202009005924-U1) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0002, 0003, 0005]).
Moreover as per claims 8 and 9, the combination of DE -202009005924-U1 to Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1), would yield wherein the record support plate (as taught by DE -202009005924-U1)being accommodated in the sleeve (as taught by Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1)), and the jacket (as taught by Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1)) is fixed to the record support plate (as taught by DE -202009005924-U1); and the 10-inch disc, the 7-inch disc, or the compact disc which is accommodated in the jacket (as taught by Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the record jacket and sleeve as taught by Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1), in conjunction with the record support plate of DE -202009005924-U1, in order to advantageously provide a track listing on the jacket (of the records provide therein) while further protecting “the record from dust accumulation and static buildup . . . during insertion and removal to and from the outer jacket.” See paragraph [0003] of Sarazin (US 2020/0286518 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein holders for different sized recording media are provided, to accommodate the different sized media. See attached PTO-892.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights