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 .
Drawings
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 “hook” (claim 8), the “double sided mounting tape” (claim 10), the “clip or clasp” (claim 15), and the “double-sided wall mounting adhesive located on a rear side of the frame body” (claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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.
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.
Claim 17 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.
The word “sustainable” and the phrase “eco-friendly” are vague. It would not be possible to determine with precision when the claim was infringed because it would not be possible to know when a material is considered sustainable and eco-friendly.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vallar (2013/0125436).
Vallar discloses a floating picture frame, comprising: a frame body (10, Fig. 2b) having an outer frame (16, Fig. 2b) and an inner mounting plate (14, Fig. 2b), wherein a channel (30, Fig. 2b) is formed between the outer frame and the inner mounting plate; wherein the channel encircles the inner mounting plate and is accessible from a front side of the frame body; wherein the mounting plate comprises a front side (44, Fig. 2a) with a retention mechanism (paragraph 0028) adapted to receive a picture element (20, Fig. 2b) thereon.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, see paragraph 0030.
Regarding claim 9, see Fig. 2b.
Regarding claim 11, the image disclosed by Vallar is a photograph (paragraph 0028). The method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, the limitation that the photo is formed by metal dye sublimation does not distinguish over the prior art.
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 4-7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Pirayesh et al. (2015/0132528).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose a support member on the back side of the frame body. Pirayesh teaches providing a support (34, Fig. 4) to support the fame body in an upright position. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frame body disclosed by Vallar with a support, as taught by Pirayesh, in order to support the frame body in an upright position.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Pirayesh discloses apertures (20, Fig. 4) that enable the frame body to be positioned in either a portrait or landscape configuration.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Pirayesh et al. (2015/0132528), as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of Wheeler (3,146,981).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose a hook and a frame mounting bracket. Wheeler teaches using a hook (Fig. 5) to mount a picture frame to a wall by a picture frame mounting bracket (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frame body disclosed by Vallar with a hook and a picture frame mounting bracket, as taught by Wheeler, in order to mount the frame body to a vertical surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Fortunato Honeyman (2017/0273478).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose attaching the picture element to the mounting plate with double sided tape. Fortunato Honeyman teaches attaching a picture element to a mounting plate with double sided tape (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach the picture element disclosed by Vallar to the mounting plate, as taught by Fortunato Honeyman, in order to secure the picture element to the mounting plate.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Splittgerber (2007/0204500).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose magnets as a retention mechanism. Splittgerber teaches using magnets as a retention mechanism (paragraph 0029). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use magnets as the retention mechanism in the frame disclosed by Vallar, as taught by Splittgerber, in order to make the retention mechanism readily and repeatably releasable.
Regarding claim 13, note elements 14 and 15 disclosed by Splittgerber.
Regarding claim 14, Splittgerber teaches that the magnets can be embedded (paragraph 0037) and Vallar discloses that the picture element is flush with the front face of the mounting plate.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Byfield (2014/0144055).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose using a clip or clasp as a retention mechanism. Byfield teaches using a clip as a retention mechanism (paragraph 0072). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a clasp, as taught by Byfield, for the retention mechanism disclosed by Vallar because it is considered obvious to substitute components that are known to be equivalent for the same purpose, as a matter of design choice. See MPEP § 2144.06(II).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallar (2013/0125436) in view of Tsai (2018/0311999).
Vallar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Vallar does not disclose a wall mounting member that comprises double-sided adhesive. Tsai teaches using double-sided adhesive to attach a frame to a wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the frame disclosed by Vallar with a double-sided adhesive on the rear side thereof, as taught by Tsai, in order to mount the frame to a wall.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of each reference is explained below, unless the relevance is deemed to be readily apparent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights