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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,280,613. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as demonstrated below:
Regarding claims 1-7 of the present invention, claims 1-7 of ‘613 teach the respective limitations thereof.
Regarding claim 8 of the present invention, claims 1 and 7 of ‘613 teach the limitations thereof.
Regarding claims 9-20 of the present invention, claims 8-10 of ‘613 teach the respective limitations thereof.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106).
For claim 1: Neville et al. teaches a crafting mat assembly (see paragraph 44, Fig. 9 and Fig. 16, glass platen 50 comprising elements 60, 91, 62) configured to operably support a substrate thereon during a heat press procedure (see paragraph 33, while the element 50 is depicted as the upper platen, Neville et al. contemplates that the platen may be the lower platen instead of the upper platen, thus being operable to support a substrate thereon), the crafting mat assembly comprising: a container portion 66 defining a cavity (see Fig. 16, portion within frame 66 wherein elements 62, 91, 60 are held); and a layered interior body portion disposed within the cavity, wherein: the container portion comprises a top layer (see Fig. 16, layer 60 and upper portion of the frame 64) and a bottom layer 66 connected to the top layer 64 (at least connecting through elements seen on the edge of the planar surfaces in Fig. 16) for defining the cavity (see Fig. 16, the frame 66 defining the cavity); the layered interior body portion comprises an intermediate layer 91 and a lower layer 62; the intermediate layer 91 is disposed between the top layer of the container portion 60 and the lower layer 62 (see Fig. 16, the element 91 being sandwiched by the layers 60, 62, noting the arrangement of the layers is inverted since the top platen is utilized as the bottom platen as per paragraph 33) of the layered interior body portion 91, 62; and the lower layer 62 is disposed between the intermediate layer of the layered interior body portion 91 and the bottom layer 66 of the container portion (see Fig. 16, the lower layer 62 sandwiched between the layer 91 and the bottom frame, also see paragraph 44).
For claim 15: Neville et al. teaches a crafting mat assembly (see paragraph 44, Fig. 9 and Fig. 16, glass platen 50 comprising elements 60, 91, 62) configured to operably support a substrate thereon during a heat press procedure (see paragraph 33, while the element 50 is depicted as the upper platen, Neville et al. contemplates that the platen may be the lower platen instead of the upper platen, thus being operable to support a substrate thereon), the crafting mat assembly comprising: a container portion 66 defining a cavity (see Fig. 16, portion within frame 66 wherein elements 62, 91, 60 are held); and a layered interior body portion disposed within the cavity, wherein: the container portion comprises a top layer (see Fig. 16, layer 60 and upper portion of the frame 64) and a bottom layer 66 connected to the top layer 64 (at least connecting through elements seen on the edge of the planar surfaces in Fig. 16) for defining the cavity (see Fig. 16, the frame 66 defining the cavity); the layered interior body portion comprises an upper layer 60 disposed adjacent to the top layer (see Fig. 16, the top layer being frame element 64, the upper layer being glass platen 60 adjacent the top layer 64), a lower layer 62 adjacent the bottom layer 66 and an intermediate layer 90, 91 being disposed between the upper layer 60 and the lower layer 62 (see Fig. 16).
For claim 2: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat assembly according to claim 1 wherein the intermediate layer is configured to reflect heat from a heating device that passed through the top layer during the heat press procedure back toward and through the top layer (see paragraph 49, the heating device 80 is used to heat the top layer 60 and the heating passing through the top layer past the layer 91 is reflected back by the layer 91 into and through the glass sheet 60).
For claim 3: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat assembly of claim 2 wherein the lower layer 62 is heat insulative and configured to inhibit heat from passing therethrough (see paragraph 44, the insulating layer or sheet 62).
For claims 7 and 18: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat assembly of claims 1 and 15, wherein the layers of the interior body portion 91, 62 are not affixed to one another and thus permitted to shift or move relative to one another (see Fig. 16, at least the layer 91 can shift relative to the layer 62 and they are not affixed to one another).
For claims 9 and 19: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat of claims 1 and 15 wherein the top layer of the container portion is connected to the bottom layer of the container portion along a seam that extends circumferentially around a perimeter of the crafting mat assembly (see Fig. 16, the gap between layers 64, 66 being a seam which appears to extend around the entire perimeter of the assembly, see Fig. 1, a seam around the perimeter is visible in the portion 50).
For claim 13: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat assembly of claim 1 wherein a top surface of the top layer of the container portion is configured to engage and support the substrate during the heat press procedure (see Fig. 16, see paragraph 33, where the layer 60 is reversed and the top layer of the layer 60, 91, 62, the layer 60 supports the substrate).
For claim 16: Neville et al. teaches the crafting mat of claim 15 wherein the intermediate layer 91 is configured to reflect heat, from a heating device that passed through the upper layer 60 during the heat press procedure, back toward and through the upper layer 60 and the lower layer is heat insulative and configured to inhibit heat from passing therethrough (see paragraph 49, the heating device 80 is used to heat the top layer 60 and the heating passing through the top layer past the layer 91 is reflected back by the layer 91 into and through the glass sheet 60, see paragraph 44, the insulating layer or sheet 62).
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.
Claims 4-6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106).
For claims 4 and 17: Neville et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 and 17 except that the lower layer is thicker than the top layer, the intermediate layer or the bottom layer. However, the thickness of the lower layer is a result effective variable that correlates to the amount of heat passing to the outer frame of the device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to increase the thickness of the lower layer being the insulative layer to further insulate the other layers and reduce the passage of heat to the outer frame of the device. The thickness can be increased to encompass up to substantially the entire cavity not occupied by other layers seen in Fig. 16.
For claim 5 and 6: Neville et al. teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and the thickness of the lower layer is increased as demonstrated above such that it can be thicker than all other layers and all combinations of other layers.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106) in view of MokhtarzadehBahadorani (US PG Pub 2020/0182527).
For claims 8 and 18: Neville et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 18 except that the layers of the layer interior portion are not affixed to the container portion and thus permitted to laterally shift or move relative to the container portion. However, MokhtarzadehBahadorani teaches an insulation being comprised of material not adhered to or affixed to the container portion and thus able to shift (see paragraph 32, loose fill material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Neville et al. by providing unaffixed material for the purpose of allowing it to expand without strain when heated.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106) in view of Suzuki (US PG Pub 2016/0252856).
For claim 10: Neville et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 except that the intermediate layer comprises a metallic plate. However, Suzuki teaches providing the reflection plate as a metal plate (see paragraph 46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Neville et al. to provide the intermediate layer as a metallic plate as taught by Suzuki for the purpose of ensuring that it maintains its general shape in operation.
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106) and Suzuki (US PG Pub 2016/0252856) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Yagi e al. (US PG Pub 2019/0301087)
For claim 11: The combination of Neville et al. and Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 except that the lower layer comprises a foam material. However, Yagi et al. teaches provision of an insulating element in a heat press as a silicon rubber foam (see paragraph 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Neville et al. and Suzuki by providing the insulating layer as a silicone rubber foam layer as taught by Yagi et al. for the purpose of blocking passage of heat through the region.
For claim 12: The combination of Neville et al., Suzuki and Yagi et al. teaches the crafting mat assembly of claim 11 wherein the metallic material comprises a pre-shrunk metallic material (see Suzuki, paragraph 46, the metal plate having a fixed shape) and the foam material comprises a silicon foam material (see Yagi et al., paragraph 18, silicon rubber foam).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Neville et al. (US PG Pub 2006/0186106).
Regarding claims 14 and 20 below, the claims are rejected under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 as feature not taught is believed to be printed matter, but provision of this printed matter is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
For claims 14 and 20: Neville et al. teaches all of the limitations of claims 34 and 40 except that the crafting mat assembly comprises indicia configured to indicate to a user a proper orientation of the crafting mat assembly during the heat press procedure. However, provision of indicia configured to indicate a user of a proper orientation of the crafting mat during the heat press procedure is printed matter which does not distinguish the claim from the prior art. Furthermore, it is well-known in the prior art to provide indicia indicating an operational orientation of a device, which is in a broadest reasonable interpretation no more than a “This side up” label or arrow. Examiner thus takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to provide indicia configured to indicate a user of a proper orientation of the device during operation for the purpose of causing the user to operate the device properly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H BANH whose telephone number is (571)270-3851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12-8PM.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at (571)272-2149. 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.
/DAVID H BANH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853