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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final First Office Action on the Merits in application 19/110,020, filed 3/7/2025.
Claims 1 and 5-6 were amended and claims 7-12 added in the preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-12 are pending and examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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 beams “crossing each other” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Figs. 1 and 3-7 show the beam ends attached to sides of the post not crossing each other.
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, change “in the beams” to “along the beams”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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.
In claim 1, it is not clear how the posts and beams interact, as well as how the guide rails and bridge rail, with the terms “beams cross each other” and “each other across the support post” in claim 1, as well as “adjacent to each other across the support post” in claim 2.
In claim 2, line 2, “linearly built over the two guide rails” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the bridging rail is “built over” the guide rails when both rails are adjacent to one another and appear to be end to end not one on top of another.
In claim 4, line 2, “is built over each pair of adjacent two of the two guide rails” renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear as to how the bridging rail is “built over” the guide rails when both rails are adjacent to one another and appear to be end to end not one on top of another.
In claim 4, it is not clear how one bridging rail can be between more than one pair of guide rails. By changing “rail is built over each pair of” to “rail comprises a plurality of bridging rails, each of the bridging rails is adjacent pairs the guide rails” the rejection would be overcome.
In claim 4, line 3, “in three directions” renders the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear as to how the how the rails interrelate with the beams.
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.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuhisa(JP3740554; cited on IDs filed 5/7/2025.
Kazuhisa discloses a spatial structure(see Fig. 1), comprising:
a plurality of support posts(considered 2D, see paras. [0018] and [0019]); and
a plurality of beams(3/4) configured to couple upper portions of the support posts together such that the beams cross each other(see Fig. 1, the beams of Kazuhisa “cross each other” in as much as the disclosed posts/beams and considered to meet the claim limitation),
wherein the spatial structure is configured for standing on its own(see claim 4) and further comprises a plurality of guide rails(12, 15, see paras. [0018] and [0019] and Figs. 1-2) which are provided along the beams(see Figs. 1 and 2) and configured to support a moving panel(9/36, see para. [0016] and [0030]), and
two of the guide rails(12, 15) that are adjacent one another(see Fig. 3), connected by a bridge rail(portion at right angle to 15, see para. [0020] and Fig. 4; the right angle portion connects the rails and is considered to meet the claim limitation as best understood), the bridging rail is adjacent to the pair of guide rails in a left, right and up/down direction(considered to meet “in three direction at least).
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 3 and 5-12 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhisa.
Kazuhisa discloses the spatial structure according to claim 2, wherein the bridge rail extends between the two guide rails that are adjacent to each other at right angles but lacks the specific orientation of the rails with respect to one another.
The specific angle and manner in which the rails interact is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan to determine given the intended use of the rails and design requirements thereof.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 9 and 11, Kazuhisa discloses the spatial structure according to claims 1, but lacks a dimension between two guide rollers(39, see Fig. 3) of the moving panel(3-46) to be guided by the guide rails and the bridge rail is equal to or smaller than an entire length of the bridge rail.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the contact between the panel and the floor(see paras. [0011], [0022], [0024] and [0035]).
Therefore, the specific locations of the guide rollers is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan to determine given the intended use of the rails and design requirements thereof such as providing a smooth rolling of the moving panel.
Regarding claims 6, 8, 10 and 12, Kazuhisa discloses the spatial structure according to claims 1-4, wherein the moving panel(36) is brought into contact with a floor surface(see Fig. 3) but lacks the specific contact.
Applicant’s disclosure lends no criticality to the contact between the panel and the floor(see para. [0012]).
Therefore, the specific contact between the panel and floor is considered a feature best determined by a skilled artisan to determine given the intended use of the rails and design requirements thereof.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH A. AUBREY whose telephone number is (571)272-1851. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4:30p.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at 571-272-6754. 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.
BETH A. AUBREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/Beth A Aubrey/
Prosecution Insights