DETAILED ACTION
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 1-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xifra (FR 2,667,491) (See NPL for English Translation).
In respect to claims 1, 3, 6, and 10, Xifra discloses a picture frame, which may be comprised of four elongated frame parts 16 (each forming an edge of the picture frame) (Fig. 1); each elongated frame part 16 comprising a first end with a connection element 17 configured to releasably engage a receiving member (aperture) 18 at a second end of another elongated frame part (the receiving member extending into the frame part in the longitudinal direction) (Pg. 5, Para 2; Fig. 4); wherein the “male element [17] is made perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the profile [elongated frame part]” (Pg. 5, Para 2; Fig. 4); and wherein the connection element comprises a “guiding protrusion” configured to guide the connection element 17 into the receiving member 18 i.e. the perimeter guides into the receiving member via complementary cross-sections (Fig. 4).
In respect to claims 2 and 4-5, Xifra discloses the male protrusion further comprises a ledge configured to engage an inner edge of the receiving member i.e. a notch 19 and cut 20 each have surfaces (a ledge an inner edge, respectively) as engaging surfaces of the notch and cut, forming a snap-fit connection.
In respect to claims 7, 8, and 16, Xifra discloses four “angle connections” 29 detachably connected to two adjacent elongated frame parts (which form border 1), having snap-fit elements (0008; Figs. 3 & 7).
In respect to claim 9, Xifra discloses the angle connections 29, detailed above, and furthermore, the lip 29 which presses against the display element 25 and glass plate 26, reasonably construed as a “biasing element” i.e. if the display element 25 and/or glass plate 26 are of sufficient thickness, a biasing action would commence (through bending deformation) (Fig. 7).
In respect to claims 11 and 12, Xifra disclose that all of the elongated frame parts are formed in one piece. Although Xifra does not disclose that the elongated frame parts are formed via injecting molding, however, although product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In respect to claims 13 and 15, Xifra discloses the claimed invention for the reasons stated above, including connecting the connection element of each of elongated frame parts to the receiving members of other parts forming a complete frame (Fig. 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xifra (FR 2,667,491) (See NPL for English Translation) in view of Hatton et al. (US 2019/0290028).
Xifra does not explicitly disclosed providing the parts as injection molded parts, however, Hatton et al. teach a very similar picture frame with combined elongated parts. These parts may be injection molded (0048). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the elongated parts in Xifra via injection molding in view of Hatton et al. The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, namely, injection molding which is an extremely well-known process which provides cheap and easy construction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sugihara et al. (US 4,862,612), Chen (US 4,974,352), Bennett (US 5,419,064), Horwitt (US 4,149,332), Moe et al. (US 4,237,631), Komamura (WO 84/02559), Bok et al. (EP 884,015), Ferraroni (EP 479,366), and Pereira (BR 10-2019-027834), discloses similar inventions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT GRABOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3518. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm.
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, Daniel Troy, can be reached at 571-270-3742. 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.
/KYLE R GRABOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights