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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/21/2025 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: a written description of a “discontinuous anti-slip pattern” was not found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Support for the limitation in claim 1 requiring “wherein a length of the spring is less than a half of a length of the fixed rod” was not found in the original disclosure. The written portion of the disclosure is silent as to the relative length of the spring to the fixed rod; drawings are not drawn to scale and thus cannot be relied upon to teach specifics such as this limitation. Accordingly, the limitation lacks support in the original disclosure and is considered new matter. Claims 2-19 inherit this issue since they depend from the rejected claim.
Support for the limitation in claim 22 requiring “a rigidity of the first casing is larger than that of the first footpad” was not found in the original disclosure. The rigidity of the first footpad is not discussed either alone or relative to the first casing.
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, it is unclear what “a rigidity of the first casing is larger than that of the first footpad.” Specifically, what is meant by “larger” when comparing the rigidity between the two features? More rigid? A measurable value that is greater? An area? Etc. This appears to be misdescriptive language, and the Examiner is interpreting the term “larger” to mean “greater than” for the purpose of examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,925,747 (hereinafter Hanley) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2022/0160158 (hereinafter Scanlon).
Regarding claim 1, Hanley discloses a shower curtain rod, comprising: a first support rod (10), the first support rod comprising a fixed rod (12) and a telescopic rod (14), wherein the telescopic rod (14) is coaxially sleeved in the fixed rod (12) (fig. 1), a spring (16) is installed in the fixed rod (12), a fixation pin (28) is installed in the telescopic rod (14), the fixation pin (28) penetrates into a spring gap (defined between coils 22; see fig. 4) of the spring (16), and when the telescopic rod (14) is rotated, the fixation pin (28) rotates in the spring gap so that the telescopic rod (14) performs a telescopic movement relative to the fixed rod (12) (col. 2, ln. 43-54), and wherein when the telescopic rod (14) is turned counterclockwise, the fixation pin (28) is capable of spiraling downwards in the spring gap (defined between coils 22) to elongate the telescopic rod (14) with respect to the fixed rod (12), when the telescopic rod (14) is turned clockwise, the fixation pin (28) is capable of spiraling upwards in the spring gap (defined between coils 22) to shorten the telescopic rod (14) relative to the fixed rod (12); or, when the telescopic rod (14) is turned counterclockwise, the fixation pin (28) is capable of spiraling upwards in the spring gap (defined between coils 22) to shorten the telescopic rod (14) relative to the fixed rod (12), when the telescopic rod (14) is turned clockwise, the fixation pin (28) is capable of spiraling downwards in the spring gap (defined between coils 22) to elongate the telescopic rod (14) with respect to the fixed rod (12) (col. 2, ln. 43-54). Hanley fails to show a length of the spring is less than a half of a length of the fixed rod. Attention is turned to Scanlon which shows sizing a spring to be less than a half of a length of a fixed rod of an adjustable tension rod (fig. 4, 6, 7, 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to size the spring of Hanley to be less than a half of a length of the fixed rod to reduce manufacturing costs by reducing the overall length of the spring; such configuration is well-known in the art to produce the expected result of a spring-tensioned adjustable rod as evidenced by the teachings of Scanlon mentioned above.
Regarding claim 2, Hanley discloses the spring (16) comprises a fixed end (24) and a free end (opposite end), the fixed end (24) is fixed on an inner wall of the fixed rod (12), and the fixation pin (28) penetrates into the spring gap between the fixed end (24) and the free end (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Hanley shows a support assembly (20), the first support rod (10) is provided with a first end (end adjacent finial 20 with section 14), the support assembly (20) is respectively disposed at the first end of the first support rod (10), and the support assembly (20) is disposed at a second end of the shower curtain rod (fig. 1) but fails to show a second support rod, wherein the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, the second support rod is provided with a second end, and the support assembly is disposed at the second end of the second support rod. Attention is turned to Scanlon which shows a shower curtain rod assembly with a first support rod (14, 12A) provided with a first end and a support assembly (72) disposed at the first end, and a second support rod (12E) connected to the first support rod, and the second end of the second support rod has a support assembly (71). Scanlon teaches that a curtain rod may include a first support rod (14, 12A) and additional support rods (12B-12E, etc.) to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the shower curtain rod of Hanley to include a second support rod connected to the first support rod and including a support assembly disposed at the second end of the second support rod to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod to decrease overall packaging lengths as evidenced by the teachings of Scanlon mentioned above. Regarding the limitation that the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, Scanlon teaches that the rods may be coupled in any suitable well-known attachment means (par. 28), and although threads are not explicitly recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascertain that a threaded connection would fall well within the purview of the invention of “suitable attachment means” as threading two rods together is well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, under the modification in view of Scanlon, Scanlon shows a connection assembly (12B, 12C, 12D), wherein the first support rod (14, 12A) and the second support rod (12E) are connected through the connection assembly (12B, 12C, 12D) to extend a length of the first support rod and the second support rod (par. 28).
Regarding claim 5, under the modification in view of Scanlon, Scanlon shows the connection assembly comprises at least a first connection rod (12B), a second connection rod (12C) and a third connection rod (12D), one end of the first support rod (12A) is provided with a first connection portion (end that receives 16B), one end of the first connection rod (12B) is provided with a second connection portion (16B), the first connection portion and the second connection portion are detachably connected so that the first support rod and the first connection rod are detachably connected (par. 28); the other end of the first connection rod is provided with a third connection portion (end adjacent 16C), one end of the second connection rod (12C) is provided with a fourth connection portion (16C), the third connection portion and the fourth connection portion are detachably connected so that the first connection rod and the second connection rod are detachably connected (par. 28); the other end of the second connection rod is provided with a fifth connection portion (end adjacent 16D), one end of the third connection rod (12D) is provided with a sixth connection portion (16D), the fifth connection portion and the sixth connection portion are detachably connected so that the second connection rod and the third connection rod are detachably connected (par. 28); the other end of the third connection rod is provided with a seventh connection portion (end adjacent 16E), one end of the second support rod (12E) is provided with an eighth connection portion (16E), the seventh connection portion and the eighth connection portion are detachably connected so that the third connection rod and the second support rod are detachably connected (par. 28, fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 6, Hanley shows the support assembly (20) also comprises a first support assembly (right side, 20) and a second support assembly (left side, 20), the first support assembly (right side, 20) is provided with a first mounting groove (note annotated fig. below), the first end is detachably installed in the first mounting groove (note annotated fig. below), so that the first support assembly is detachably connected to the first support assembly, the second support assembly (left side, 20) is provided with a second mounting groove (note annotated fig. below), so that the second support assembly is detachably connected to the second support assembly (note annotated fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
394
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
302
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hanley shows a sleeve (18), wherein the sleeve (18) is sleeved between the fixed rod (12) and the telescopic rod (14) but fails to show it is made of rubber. Attention is turned to Scanlon which shows selecting rubber for a curtain rod sleeve is well-known in the art (par. 31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select rubber as the material for the sleeve since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Hanley shows a length of the spring is between 10% and 90% of a length of the fixed rod (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Hanley fails to show wherein a width of the first support assembly is greater than a width of the first support rod; and a width of the second support assembly is greater than a width of the second support rod, the width of the first support rod ranges from 10mm to 30mm, the width of the first support assembly ranges from 11mm to 70mm, a height of the first support assembly ranges from 10mm to 50mm; the width of the second support rod ranges from 10mm to 30mm, the width of the second support assembly ranges from of 11mm to 70mm, and a height of the second support assembly ranges from 10mm to 50mm. Applicant has not disclosed that having these specific dimensions solves a stated problem or is for a particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the device of Hanley, or applicant’s invention would perform equally well within the claimed dimensions because such dimensions fall well within the purview of typical curtain rod sizes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select wherein a width of the first support assembly is greater than a width of the first support rod; and a width of the second support assembly is greater than a width of the second support rod, the width of the first support rod ranges from 10mm to 30mm, the width of the first support assembly ranges from 11mm to 70mm, a height of the first support assembly ranges from 10mm to 50mm; the width of the second support rod ranges from 10mm to 30mm, the width of the second support assembly ranges from of 11mm to 70mm, and a height of the second support assembly ranges from 10mm to 50mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hanley (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanley and Scanlon as applied to claims 3-6 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,427,486 (hereinafter Green).
Regarding claim 7, Hanley shows the first support assembly comprises a flexible first footpad (34) and a rigid first casing (30), the first casing (30) is sleeved on the first footpad (34), , the second support assembly comprises a flexible second footpad (34) and a rigid second casing (30), the second casing (30) is sleeved on the second footpad (34). Hanley is silent as to the pattern on the footpads and thus fails to show a bottom of the first and second footpad is provided with an anti-slip pattern. Attention is turned to Green in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows using an anti-slip pattern on a footpad of a tension mounted rod to promote that the rod maintains an installed position (col. 2, ln. 55-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-slip pattern on the footpads of Hanley to assist in positioning and maintaining the rod when installed as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings above.
Regarding claim 11, Hanley fails to show the first footpad is a first rubber footpad or a first silicone footpad; and the second footpad is a second rubber footpad or a second silicone footpad. Attention is turned again to Green which shows selecting rubber or silicone for a footpad of a curtain rod is well-known in the art (col. 2, ln. 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select rubber or silicone as the material for the footpad since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanley and Scanlon as applied to claims 3-6 above, and further in view of US Patent 5,427,486 (hereinafter Green).
Regarding claim 7, Hanley shows the first support assembly comprises a flexible first footpad (34) and a rigid first casing (30), the first casing (30) is sleeved on the first footpad (34), , the second support assembly comprises a flexible second footpad (34) and a rigid second casing (30), the second casing (30) is sleeved on the second footpad (34). Hanley is silent as to the pattern on the footpads and thus fails to show a bottom of the first and second footpad is provided with an anti-slip pattern. Attention is turned to Green in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows using an anti-slip pattern on a footpad of a tension mounted rod to promote that the rod maintains an installed position (col. 2, ln. 55-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-slip pattern on the footpads of Hanley to assist in positioning and maintaining the rod when installed as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings above.
Regarding claim 11, Hanley fails to show the first footpad is a first rubber footpad or a first silicone footpad; and the second footpad is a second rubber footpad or a second silicone footpad. Attention is turned again to Green which shows selecting rubber or silicone for a footpad of a curtain rod is well-known in the art (col. 2, ln. 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select rubber or silicone as the material for the footpad since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 23, Hanley discloses a shower curtain rod, comprising: a first support rod (10), the first support rod comprising a fixed rod (12) and a telescopic rod (14), wherein the telescopic rod (14) is coaxially sleeved in the fixed rod (12) (fig. 1), a spring (16) is installed in the fixed rod (12), a fixation pin (28) is installed in the telescopic rod (14), the fixation pin (28) penetrates into a spring gap (defined between coils 22; see fig. 4) of the spring (16), and when the telescopic rod (14) is rotated, the fixation pin (28) rotates in the spring gap so that the telescopic rod (14) performs a telescopic movement relative to the fixed rod (12) (col. 2, ln. 43-54), wherein the spring (16) comprises a fixed end (adj 24/26) and a free end (opposite end), the fixed end (24/26) is fixed on an inner wall of the fixed rod (12), and the fixation pin (28) penetrates into the spring gap (between coils 22) between the fixed end and the free end (fig. 2); Hanley shows a support assembly (20), the first support rod (10) is provided with a first end (end adjacent finial 20 with section 14), the support assembly (20) is respectively disposed at the first end of the first support rod (10), and the support assembly (20) is disposed at a second end of the shower curtain rod (fig. 1) but fails to show a second support rod, wherein the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, the second support rod is provided with a second end, and the support assembly is disposed at the second end of the second support rod. Attention is turned to Scanlon which shows a shower curtain rod assembly with a first support rod (14, 12A) provided with a first end and a support assembly (72) disposed at the first end, and a second support rod (12E) connected to the first support rod, and the second end of the second support rod has a support assembly (71). Scanlon teaches that a curtain rod may include a first support rod (14, 12A) and additional support rods (12B-12E, etc.) to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the shower curtain rod of Hanley to include a second support rod connected to the first support rod and including a support assembly disposed at the second end of the second support rod to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod to decrease overall packaging lengths as evidenced by the teachings of Scanlon mentioned above. Regarding the limitation that the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, Scanlon teaches that the rods may be coupled in any suitable well-known attachment means (par. 28), and although threads are not explicitly recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascertain that a threaded connection would fall well within the purview of the invention of “suitable attachment means” as threading two rods together is well-known in the art.
Hanley shows the first support assembly comprises a flexible first footpad (34) and a rigid first casing (30), the first casing (30) is sleeved on the first footpad (34), the second support assembly comprises a flexible second footpad (34) and a rigid second casing (30), the second casing (30) is sleeved on the second footpad (34). Hanley is silent as to the pattern on the footpads and thus fails to show a bottom of the first and second footpad is provided with an anti-slip pattern, wherein the anti-slip pattern of the first footpad is a discontinuous circular pattern. Attention is turned to Green in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows using an anti-slip pattern on a footpad of a tension mounted rod to promote that the rod maintains an installed position (col. 2, ln. 55-63). Green further teaches the pattern is a discontinuous circular pattern because it is described as “treads similar to tire treads” which are known to be both discontinuous and circular in pattern (col. 4, ln. 18-21). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-slip pattern having a discontinuous circular pattern on the footpads of Hanley to assist in positioning and maintaining the rod when installed as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings above.
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanley, Scanlon, and Green as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0082875 (hereinafter Scanlon ‘875).
Regarding claim 8, Hanley fails to show the first casing and the second casing are made of stainless steel. Attention is turned to Scanlon ‘875 in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows selecting stainless steel for a curtain rod end casing is well-known in the art (par. 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select stainless steel as the material for the casings since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Hanley discloses a shower curtain rod, comprising: a first support rod (10), the first support rod comprising a fixed rod (12) and a telescopic rod (14), wherein the telescopic rod (14) is coaxially sleeved in the fixed rod (12) (fig. 1), a spring (16) is installed in the fixed rod (12), a fixation pin (28) is installed in the telescopic rod (14), the fixation pin (28) penetrates into a spring gap (defined between coils 22; see fig. 4) of the spring (16), and when the telescopic rod (14) is rotated, the fixation pin (28) rotates in the spring gap so that the telescopic rod (14) performs a telescopic movement relative to the fixed rod (12) (col. 2, ln. 43-54), wherein the spring (16) comprises a fixed end (adj 24/26) and a free end (opposite end), the fixed end (24/26) is fixed on an inner wall of the fixed rod (12), and the fixation pin (28) penetrates into the spring gap (between coils 22) between the fixed end and the free end (fig. 2); Hanley shows a support assembly (20), the first support rod (10) is provided with a first end (end adjacent finial 20 with section 14), the support assembly (20) is respectively disposed at the first end of the first support rod (10), and the support assembly (20) is disposed at a second end of the shower curtain rod (fig. 1) but fails to show a second support rod, wherein the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, the second support rod is provided with a second end, and the support assembly is disposed at the second end of the second support rod. Attention is turned to Scanlon which shows a shower curtain rod assembly with a first support rod (14, 12A) provided with a first end and a support assembly (72) disposed at the first end, and a second support rod (12E) connected to the first support rod, and the second end of the second support rod has a support assembly (71). Scanlon teaches that a curtain rod may include a first support rod (14, 12A) and additional support rods (12B-12E, etc.) to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod (par. 28). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the shower curtain rod of Hanley to include a second support rod connected to the first support rod and including a support assembly disposed at the second end of the second support rod to facilitate storage and shipping of the rod to decrease overall packaging lengths as evidenced by the teachings of Scanlon mentioned above. Regarding the limitation that the second support rod is threadedly connected to the first support rod, Scanlon teaches that the rods may be coupled in any suitable well-known attachment means (par. 28), and although threads are not explicitly recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascertain that a threaded connection would fall well within the purview of the invention of “suitable attachment means” as threading two rods together is well-known in the art.
Hanley shows the first support assembly comprises a flexible first footpad (34) and a rigid first casing (30), the first casing (30) is sleeved on the first footpad (34), the second support assembly comprises a flexible second footpad (34) and a rigid second casing (30), the second casing (30) is sleeved on the second footpad (34). Hanley is silent as to the pattern on the footpads and thus fails to show a bottom of the first and second footpad is provided with an anti-slip pattern. Attention is turned to Green in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows using an anti-slip pattern on a footpad of a tension mounted rod to promote that the rod maintains an installed position (col. 2, ln. 55-63). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to utilize an anti-slip pattern on the footpads of Hanley to assist in positioning and maintaining the rod when installed as is known in the art and evidenced by the teachings above.
Hanley fails to show the first footpad is a first rubber footpad or a first silicone footpad; and the second footpad is a second rubber footpad or a second silicone footpad. Attention is turned again to Green which shows selecting rubber or silicone for a footpad of a curtain rod is well-known in the art (col. 2, ln. 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select rubber or silicone as the material for the footpad since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art.
Hanley is silent as to the materials of the first casing and the first footpad, and thus fails to show a rigidity of the first casing is greater than a rigidity of the first footpad. Attention is turned again to Green which shows selecting rubber or silicone for a footpad of a curtain rod is well-known in the art (col. 2, ln. 55-57). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select rubber or silicone as the material for the footpad since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art. Attention is turned to Scanlon ‘875 in the same field of endeavor of tension rods which shows selecting stainless steel for a curtain rod end casing is well-known in the art (par. 27). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select stainless steel as the material for the casings since the selection of a material based on its suitability for its intended use as evidenced by the prior art above involves only routine skill in the art. Such a known selection of material would result in the claimed limitation of a first casing having a greater rigidity than the first footpad since stainless steel is more rigid than silicone or rubber that is intended to flex/compress.
Claim(s)13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanley and Scanlon.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hanley fails to show the length of the spring ranges from 10mm to 500mm, or the length of the spring ranges from 350mm to 380mm. Applicant has not disclosed that having the length of the spring at this specific range solves a stated problem or is for a particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the spring of Hanley, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with spring length of claims 13 and 14 because these lengths would fit with typical shower or bath stall widths. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select the length of the spring from ranges of 10mm to 500mm, or the length of the spring ranges from 350mm to 380mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hanley (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Hanley fails to show a wire diameter range of the spring is from 1mm to 10mm; an inner diameter range of the spring is from 5mm to 30mm, or the wire diameter of the spring is 2.5mm; the inner diameter of the spring is 16mm. Applicant has not disclosed that having the wire diameter at these specific ranges solves a stated problem or is for a particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the spring of Hanley, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with a spring wire diameter range from 1mm to 10mm; an inner diameter range of the spring is from 5mm to 30mm, or the wire diameter of the spring is 2.5mm; the inner diameter of the spring is 16mm because these diameters fall within typical diameters of curtain rod requirements. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a wire diameter range of the spring is from 1mm to 10mm; an inner diameter range of the spring is from 5mm to 30mm, or the wire diameter of the spring is 2.5mm; the inner diameter of the spring is 16mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hanley (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Regarding claims 17 – 18, Hanley fails to show a width range of the fixation pin is from 1mm to 10mm; a length range of the fixation pin is from 1mm to 30mm, a width of the fixation pin is 4.2mm; a length of the fixation pin is from 20mm. Applicant has not disclosed that having these specific dimensions solves a stated problem or is for a particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the device of Hanley, or applicant’s invention would perform equally well within the claimed dimensions because such dimensions fall well within the purview of typical curtain rod sizes. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to select a width range of the fixation pin is from 1mm to 10mm; a length range of the fixation pin is from 1mm to 30mm, a width of the fixation pin is 4.2mm; a length of the fixation pin is from 20mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Hanley (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the new limitation added to claim 1 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by said amendments. Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the new limitation added to claim 22 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by said amendments. Applicant’s arguments about Green pertaining to the pattern of the anti-slip footpad are not found persuasive. Green, as explained above pertaining to the new limitation requiring the pattern of the anti-slip footpad to be a discontinuous circular pattern, teaches this pattern in col. 4, ln. 18-21.
Conclusion
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 JANIE M LOEPPKE whose telephone number is (571)270-5208. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, David Angwin can be reached on (571) 270-3735. 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.
/JANIE M LOEPPKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754