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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03 March 2026 has been entered.
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 1-2 and 6-11 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.
The claim 1 recitation of “a plurality configurations” is unclear. Exactly what structure/configuration is sought? Do Applicants actually intend to recite “a plurality of configurations”? Please review/revise/clarify.
Claims 2 and 6-11 are rejected as depending (directly or indirectly) from rejected independent claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 4,519,630 to Holmes (“Holmes”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,215,838 to Colonna (“Colonna”).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes discloses a workbook display (e.g. blank 12 for book cover 10, as shown in figs. 1-4 and discussed at col. 2, lines 7-13; note that per col. 3, lines 57-60, the book cover 10 may be provided with indicia as desired, and as such, provides a display for a workbook held therein) comprising: i) a base (e.g. central strip 14 and panels 20, 22, 28, together, as shown in fig. 1) comprising a plurality (fig. 1) of fold lines (e.g. 17, 19, 24, 26, 32, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50 as shown in fig. 1); and ii) a plurality of tabs (e.g. tabs 16, 18, outer panel 30, and wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46, as shown in fig. 1) connected to (fig. 1) the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) and extending away from (fig. 1) the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together), iii) wherein each of the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) and the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) comprises a data display surface (e.g. spatial areas of central strip 14, panels 20, 22, 28, tabs 16, 18, outer panel 30, and wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46, as shown in fig. 1; per col. 1, lines 24-26, the assembly is made of paperboard; note that paperboard can be printed upon to provide a display as desired), wherein the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) comprise: a) a first plurality of tabs (e.g. tab 16 and wing panels 36, 44, as shown in fig. 1) extending from (fig. 1) a first side length (e.g. upper edge, as shown in fig. 1) of the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together); b) a second plurality of tabs (e.g. tab 18 and wing panels 38, 46, as shown in fig. 1) extending from (fig. 1) a second side length (e.g. lower edge, as shown in fig. 1) of the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together); and c) at least one tab (e.g. panel 30, as shown in fig. 1) extending from (fig. 1) an end length (e.g. right end, as shown in fig. 1) of the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together), and wherein each tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) of the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) extends from (fig. 1) the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) at a fold line (e.g. 17, 19, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50, as shown in fig. 1) between (fig. 1) the tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) and the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) and is also separated from (fig. 1) an adjacent tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) of the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46), such that each tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) of the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) is independently foldable (see the construction shown in fig. 1; note the presence of fold lines 17, 19, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50) with respect to (fig. 1) the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) without folding or movement (see the construction shown in fig. 1) of an adjacent tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46), and iv) wherein the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) supports a plurality configurations (e.g. configurations shown in figs. 1-4), at least one (e.g. configuration shown in fig. 2) of the plurality of configurations (aforementioned configurations shown in figs. 1-4) defined by one or more (e.g. 16, 18, 36, 38, 44 and 46, as shown in fig. 2) of the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) being concealed (e.g. concealed from the view on the side opposite that which is shown in fig. 2) by the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together) folded along (fig. 2) at least one (fig. 2) of the plurality of fold lines (17, 19, 24, 26, 32, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50) and at least one (e.g. configuration shown in fig. 2) of the plurality of configurations (aforementioned configurations shown in figs. 1-4) defined by (fig. 2) at least one (e.g. 16, 18, 36, 38, 44 and 46, as shown in fig. 2) of the plurality of tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) being folded along (compare figs. 1-2) the fold line (17, 19, 40, 42, 48 and 50) between (fig. 2) the respective tab (16, 18, 36, 38, 44 and 46) and the base (14, 20, 22 and 28, together).
Holmes does not disclose the tabs (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) being separated from an adjacent tab (16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) by a cut line extending from the fold line (17, 19, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50).
Colonna teaches the concept of providing tabs (e.g. top and bottom edge margins 81 and 83, as shown in fig. 8) separated from adjacent (compare figs. 6-8) tabs (e.g. tabs 71, as shown in fig. 7) by a cut line (65, as shown in fig. 6) extending from (compare figs. 6-7) a fold line (e.g. lines along which tabs 71 are folded, as shown in fig. 7).
Given that Holmes and Colonna both concern similar book cover assemblies (compare Holmes figs. 1-6 and Colonna figs. 4-9), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the Holmes wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46 and tabs 16, 18 with a unitary structure separated by cut lines according to the Colonna figs. 4-8 teachings, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant configuration that is easier to produce and less likely to inadvertently lose appendage panels during manufacture.
Regarding claim 2, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 1 wherein the plurality of fold lines (Holmes 17, 19, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50) comprises a first plurality of fold lines (e.g. Holmes 24, 26 and 32, as shown in fig. 1) spaced apart from one another (Holmes fig. 1) and extending across a width (Holmes fig. 1) of the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) and a second plurality of fold lines (e.g. Holmes 40, 42, 48 and 50, as shown in fig. 1) provided along (Holmes fig. 1) a first side length (aforementioned Holmes upper edge) and a second side length (aforementioned Holmes lower edge) of the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together).
Regarding claim 6, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 2 wherein the first plurality of fold lines (Holmes 24, 26 and 32) comprises at least three fold lines (Holmes fig. 1) spaced apart on (Holmes fig. 1) the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together).
Regarding claim 7, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 6 wherein the first plurality of fold lines (Holmes 24, 26 and 32) spaced apart on (Holmes fig. 1) the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) divide (Holmes fig. 1) the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) into a plurality (Holmes fig. 1) of display surfaces (spatial areas of Holmes central strip 14 and panels 20, 22, 28, as shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 1 wherein the workbook display (Holmes 12) is comprised of paper, coated paper, cardstock or combinations thereof (Holmes col. 1, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 9, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 1, wherein the data display surfaces (aforementioned spatial areas of Holmes central strip 14, panels 20, 22, 28, tabs 16, 18, outer panel 30, and wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46, as shown in fig. 1) of each of the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) and the plurality of tabs (Holmes 16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) comprise text, images, and combinations thereof (per Holmes col. 3, lines 57-60, the overall book cover 10 may be provided with indicia as desired) and wherein each display surface (aforementioned spatial areas of Holmes central strip 14, panels 20, 22, 28, tabs 16, 18, outer panel 30, and wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46, as shown in fig. 1) of the plurality of display surfaces (aforementioned spatial areas of Holmes central strip 14, panels 20, 22, 28, tabs 16, 18, outer panel 30, and wing panels 36, 38, 44, 46, as shown in fig. 1) comprises the same or different text, images or combinations thereof (per Holmes col. 3, lines 57-60, the overall book cover 10 may be provided with indicia as desired).
Regarding claim 10, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 1 wherein the workbook display (Holmes 12) folds closed (compare Holmes figs. 2 and 4-6) to a first position (e.g. position in which the Holmes blank 12 for book cover 10 is ready to accept a book therein, as shown in figs. 4-6) where each tab (Holmes 16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) of the plurality of tabs (Holmes 16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) is concealed by (Holmes figs. 4-6) the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) folded along at least one (compare Holmes figs. 2 and 4-6) of the plurality of fold lines (Holmes 17, 19, 34, 40, 42, 48 and 50).
Regarding claim 11, Holmes in view of Colonna discloses the workbook display of claim 10 wherein the workbook display (Holmes 12) unfolds open (Holmes fig. 1) to at least one second position (e.g. position shown in Holmes fig. 1) where each tab (Holmes 16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) of the plurality of tabs (Holmes 16, 18, 30, 36, 38, 44 and 46) is exposed (Holmes fig. 1) and the base (Holmes 14, 20, 22 and 28, together) is exposed for viewing (Holmes fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicants’ claim amendments, a further search of the pertinent areas of prior art was executed. Within said search, the aforementioned Holmes and Colonna references were identified. Accordingly, Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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 J. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights