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 silicone strip (claims 5, 11, and 15) 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.
Claims 6, 7, 12, and 17 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.
Regarding claims 6, 12, and 17, there is no antecedent basis for “the corner cover plate.”
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for “the corner engagement protrusion” and “the corner engagement groove.”
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, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kapstad (3,955,298).
Kapstad discloses a picture frame, comprising: four frame sides (32, 34, 36, 38, Fig. 2) forming a rectangular frame structure (30, Fig. 2), wherein an end portion of each frame side is provided with a mounting groove (Figs. 3 and 4), and the frame side is provided with a picture groove (42, Fig. 3) for receiving an edge of a picture; and four corners (56, Fig. 5), wherein each corner is arranged between two adjacent frame sides and is provided with an insertion portion (58, 60, Fig. 5), and the insertion portion is configured to be inserted into the mounting groove and connected to the mounting groove in a detachable manner; wherein each of the frame sides comprises a first side which faces away from a wall surface during use and a second side which faces the wall surface during use, and wherein the picture groove is provided on the first side and/or the second side of each of the frame sides.
Regarding claim 3, the insertion portion (58, 60, Fig. 5) disclosed by Kapstad is provided with an elastic protrusion (62, 64, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, the elastic portion disclosed by Kapstad (62, 64, Fig. 5) is shaped as described.
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 5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Hansen et al. (2006/042141).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kapstad does not disclose providing a silicone strip on the edge of the picture. Hansen teaches providing a silicon strip on the edge of a picture to help hold the picture in a retention groove. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a silicone strip for the edge of the picture, as taught by Kapstad, in order to help hold the picture in a retention groove.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the frame disclosed by Kapstad is made of aluminum. See column 2, lines 52-56. However, it is not known what material is contemplated for the fabrication of the corner. Because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the level of ordinary skill of a worker in the art, and since a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that metal or plastic would be suitable for the fabrication of a frame corner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the corner disclosed by Kapstad from metal or plastic. See MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Hatton et al. (2019/0290028) and Lin (2007/0210234).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the corner disclosed by Kapstad is completely enclosed by the frame sides. Hatton teaches providing a corner that is not completely enclosed by the frame sides and that includes a corner accommodating notch (Fig. 3) for insertion of a picture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the corner disclosed by Kapstad for a corner of the type taught by Hatton as a matter of design choice.
Further, Kapstad does not disclose a corner cover plate provided with a hanging hole. Lin teaches providing a corner cover plate with a hanging hole. See Fig. 1-B. 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 Kapstad with a corner cover plate with a hanging hole, as taught by Lin, in order to hang the frame from a vertical surface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Packer (3,830,278).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kapstad does not disclose a reinforcing support between opposite frame sides. Packer teaches providing reinforcing supports (17, 18, 19, 20, Fig. 1) between opposite frame sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reinforcing supports between opposite frame sides disclosed by Kapstad, as taught by Packer, in order to improve the structural rigidity of the frame.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kapstad does not disclose a reinforcing support between opposite frame sides. Packer teaches providing reinforcing supports (17, 18, 19, 20, Fig. 1) between opposite frame sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reinforcing supports between opposite frame sides disclosed by Kapstad, as taught by Packer, in order to improve the structural rigidity of the frame.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Hansen et al. (2006/042141), as applied to claims 5 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Hatton et al. (2019/0290028) and Lin (2007/0210234).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the corner disclosed by Kapstad is completely enclosed by the frame sides. Hatton teaches providing a corner that is not completely enclosed by the frame sides and that includes a corner accommodating notch (Fig. 3) for insertion of a picture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the corner disclosed by Kapstad for a corner of the type taught by Hatton as a matter of design choice.
Further, Kapstad does not disclose a corner cover plate provided with a hanging hole. Lin teaches providing a corner cover plate with a hanging hole. See Fig. 1-B. 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 Kapstad with a corner cover plate with a hanging hole, as taught by Lin, in order to hang the frame from a vertical surface.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Hansen et al. (2006/042141), as applied to claims 5 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Packer (3,830,278).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, Kapstad does not disclose a reinforcing support between opposite frame sides. Packer teaches providing reinforcing supports (17, 18, 19, 20, Fig. 1) between opposite frame sides. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide reinforcing supports between opposite frame sides disclosed by Kapstad, as taught by Packer, in order to improve the structural rigidity of the frame.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kapstad (3,955,298) in view of Hansen et al. (2006/042141), as applied to claim 15, above, and further in view of Hatton et al. (2019/0290028) and Lin (2007/0210234).
Kapstad discloses the invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above. However, the corner disclosed by Kapstad is completely enclosed by the frame sides. Hatton teaches providing a corner that is not completely enclosed by the frame sides and that includes a corner accommodating notch (Fig. 3) for insertion of a picture. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the corner disclosed by Kapstad for a corner of the type taught by Hatton as a matter of design choice.
Further, Kapstad does not disclose a corner cover plate provided with a hanging hole. Lin teaches providing a corner cover plate with a hanging hole. See Fig. 1-B. 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 Kapstad with a corner cover plate with a hanging hole, as taught by Lin, in order to hang the frame from a vertical surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 is would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a corner having a corner groove and a corner cover plate that is configured to press art of a picture into the corner groove.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a disassembly opening between a corner and a corner cover plate for insertion of a disassembly tool.
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable based on their dependencies, respectively.
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