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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for priority to PCT/FI2023/000007 filed 27 October 2023 and for foreign priority to FI20227137 filed 04 November 2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 May 2025 has been considered by the examiner except for the U.S. Patent Document numbered 4,132,063 with inventor Nissen et al. The patent number appears to be mistyped. The IDS submitted on 20 June 2025 corrects the number to U.S. Patent No. 4,162,063. The IDS submitted on 20 June 2025 has been fully considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“an anchor point” of the plurality of fastener members in claim 1.
“an angle [of the fold],” “the angle of the fastener member parts,” and “angles of the side folds” in claim 4.
“an angle of the center fold” in claims 4 and 5.
“an angle of the end fold” in claim 8.
“anchor point of the spring element” in claim 11.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses implied language (“This disclosure” in line 1). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 6, “the edge” should read --an edge--
Claim 1, line 8, “comprising” should read --each comprising--
Claim 1, line 10, “the attaching members” should read --the plurality of attaching members--
Claim 1, lines 11-12, “the casings” should read --the two casings--
Claim 1, line 12, “the fastener members” should read --the plurality of fastener members--
Claim 1, lines 13-14, “the distance” should read --a distance--
Claim 2, line 1, “the claim 1” should read --claim 1--
Claim 2, line 5, “the folds” should rea d--the at least three folds--
Claim 3, line 1, “the claim 2” should read --claim 2--
Claim 3, line 2, “the side folds” should read --the two side folds--
Claim 3, line 3, “in such a way that” should read --such that--
Claim 3, line 3, “the distance” should read --a distance--
Claim 3, line 3, “the side folds” should read --the two side folds--
Claim 3, line 4, “the distance” should read --a distance--
Claim 3, line 4, “two adjacent attaching members” should read --two adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members--
Claim 4, line 1, “the claim 3” should read --claim 3--
Claim 4, lines 2-3, “the angle of the fastener member parts” should read --an angle of the fastener member parts--
Claim 4, line 3, “the sum” should read --a sum--
Claim 4, line 3, “the side folds” should read --the two side folds--
Claim 4, line 4, “the angle” should read --an angle--
Claim 6, line 2, “an anchor point” should read --the anchor point--
Claim 7, line 3, “end folds” should read --the two end folds--
Claim 7, line 4, “adjacent attaching members” should read --adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members--
Claim 8, line 1, “the claim 7” should read --claim 7--
Claim 10, line 3, “the inner casings or the outer casings” should read --the respective inner casings or the respective outer casings of the adjacent attaching members--
Claim 11, line 3, “the fastener members” should read --the plurality of fastener members--
Claim 11, line 3, “the inner casings and the outer casings” should read --respective inner casings and respective outer casings--
Claim 12, line 2, “the number” should read --a number--
Claim 12, line 3, “the spring elements” should read --the plurality of spring elements--
Claim 12, line 3, “fastener members” should read --the plurality of fastener members--
Claim 12, line 4, “adjacent attaching members” should read --adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members--
Claim 12, line 5, “adjacent fastener members” should read --the adjacent fastener members--
Claim 15, lines 2-3, “the casings” should read --the two casings--
Claim 15, line 3, “the layers” should read --the at least two layers of fabric--
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the spring element” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a plurality of spring elements” in line 4, but does not recite only one spring element. It is unclear if the spring element is one of the plurality of spring elements previously recited. It is noted that “the spring element” is recited again in line 8 and throughout the dependent claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the fastener member” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim previously recites “a plurality of fastener members” in line 7, but does not recite only one fastener member. It is unclear if the fastener member is one of the plurality of fastener members previously recited. It is noted that “the fastener member” is further recited throughout the dependent claims.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “corresponding casings” in line 15. It is unclear which of the “two casings,” the “outer casing,” or the “inner casing” are being referred to by this limitation. Applicant is further suggested to use “respective” rather than “corresponding,” such as “respective inner casings or respective outer casings of adjacent fastener members,” or the like.
Claim 1 recites “the adjacent attaching members” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the fastener member is set into corresponding casings, such that outer casings or inner casings of the adjacent attaching members and the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members” in lines 15-17. The limitation is confusing and renders the claim indefinite. The claim is written such that the outer and inner casings of adjacent attaching members and the anchor point of a fastener member is between the adjacent attaching members, but the outer and inner casings are part of the adjacent attaching members and therefore cannot be between the attaching members. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as two separate limitations requiring (1) that the outer casing and the inner casing are part of the adjacent attaching members and (2) that the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members. The Office suggests the following limitation as an amendment to the claim: --wherein the fastener member is set into respective inner casings or respective outer casings of adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members, wherein the anchor point of the fastener member is between the adjacent attaching members of the plurality of attaching members.--
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the folded fastener member” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recite the limitation “the folded fastener member is substantially in the same plane” in lines 4-5. It is unclear if the folded fastener member lies within a single plane or if the folded fastener member is in the same plane as another structure. If the folded fastener member is in the same plane as another structure, it is unclear which structure it is in the same plane as.
The term “substantially” in claims 2, 3, and 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations of “substantially in the same plane” in claim 2, “substantially shorter” in claim 3, and “substantially equal” in claim 4 are rendered indefinite by use of the term “substantially.”
Claim 4 recites the limitations “the fold” in line 1 and “the fastener member parts’ in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the end fold” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “folds of the fastener member” in line 2. It is unclear if these “folds” are referring to the “at least three folds,” the “center fold,” or the “two side folds” recited previously in claim 2, upon which claim 9 depends, or to another, separate set of folds.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “casings” in line 4. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “two casings,” “outer casing,” and/or “inner casing” recited previously in claim 1, upon which claim 9 depends, or to another, separate set of casings.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “same casings” in line 5. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the “two casings,” “outer casing,” and/or “inner casing” recited previously in claim 1, upon which claim 12 depends, or to another, separate set of casings.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the attaching member” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to disclose all of the structural and functional limitations of the claimed invention, further in view of the structure of the inner and outer casings of the plurality of attaching members.
The closest prior art of record includes Sidlinger (US 3,767,009).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sidlinger teaches a trampoline comprising: a frame (frame 10), a mat (trampoline bed 13), and a plurality of spring elements (resilient supports 14) arranged between the mat and the frame, and wherein the spring element comprises a mat end and a frame end, and the mat comprises a plurality of attaching members (fabric strips 15) on the edge of the mat, the trampoline further comprising a plurality of fastener members (anchor rods 18) comprising an anchor point (saddle 19) for the mat end of the spring element, wherein at least some of the attaching members comprise [a casing] (loop 17), the casings arranged to receive the fastener members (Fig. 3), and wherein the fastener member is set into corresponding casings, such that … the anchor point is between the adjacent attaching members (Fig. 3 shows the anchor rods 18 set into loops 17 of adjacent fabric strips 15.).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sidlinger fails to teach wherein at least some of the attaching members comprise two casings comprising an outer casing and an inner casing, wherein a distance from the inner casing to the frame is longer than the distance from the outer casing to the frame, wherein the fastener member is set into respective inner casings or respective outer casings of adjacent attaching members.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catrina A Letterman whose telephone number is (303)297-4297. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8am - 4pm MT.
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, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4966. 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.
/C.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3784
/LOAN B JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3784