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 .
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “that are inserted through the holes so that that the holder” should be that are inserted through the holes so that the holder. 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.
Claim 5 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.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Heavener (US3574807 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jonas discloses forming table (figure 4) comprising a body (2); a material (3) that is located on the body (32) for forming; a mandrel (14) that is located on the body (32), which gives form to the material; a frame (12) that holds the material on the mandrel (14), wherein comprising at least two arms (12a and 12b) that are located opposite each other, constitute the frame (12), and capable of rotating around an axis where they are connected on the body (32), wherein the material and the mandrel (14) are contained between the arms (12a and 12b), and the arms (12a and 12b) form the material on the mandrel (14); at least one holder (32) which holds the material on at least one edge thereof longitudinally, so as to provide continuity of the form of the material, wherein the holder (32) constitutes the frame (12) and extends between the opposing arms (12a and 12b); a, in which the holder (32) is slid by the user, so that a position thereof on the arms (12a and 12b) can be adjusted according to the size of the material a part produced by subjecting the material to a heat treatment. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Jones doesn’t explicitly disclose one channel in the form of an opening throughout the arms. However, analogous art, Heavener, depicts wherein at least one channel (between 28 and 34) forming throughout longitudinal opening on the bending elements, the arms (22 and 24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included support elements and channels in order to form seals along the flange [abstract].
Regarding claim 2, as for the limitation, part (P) that is made of thermoplastic material (3) changing from a regular structure to a glassy structure due to heat, such that the part (P) is solidified when the material (3) is cooled, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 3, comprising the part (P), which is transparent to be used as a canopy on an air vehicle, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 4, Jonas discloses wherein comprising a joint that enables the arms to rotate around the axis where they are connected to the body; the arms rotating around the joint in different directions with each other so that the material is stretched and bent (pg 1 lines 100-105).
Regarding claim 6, Jonas discloses a plurality of apparatus (14) located on opposing arms to move independently of each other, regarding the functional language, (enabling the holder to slide within the channel by the user, wherein the apparatuses are located on the holder to pass through the channel, thus enabling the material to be formed by stretching after its position on the channel is adjusted according to different lateral dimensions of the material according to its length), the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 7, Jonas discloses wherein a plurality of locking mechanisms that limit the linear movement of the apparatus along the channels, thus enabling the material to be fixed in a position desired by the user by bending and stretching the arms (locking nut 33 and stud projections 32 of the holder; also see pg. 6 lins 12-23, pg. 10 linns 28, ln2 and pg. 11).
Regarding claim 10, placing the body in a heat source is not part of the apparatus structurally. The Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function or method they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Heavener (US3574807 A), as applied to claim 1, in view of Jensen (US882566 A).
Regarding claim 5, Jonas discloses comprising at least one rod (34) on the body, which allows the holder shaping the edges of the material to be fixed by almost taking the shape of the rod; Jonas does not explicitly disclose the holder made of flexible material such as spring steel so that the arms take the curved shape of the rod with they contact when they rotate around the joint. However, analogous art Jensen, discloses using spring steel to form flexible members (pg 2 lines 58-60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated flexible material such as a spring steel since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Heavener (US3574807 A), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN214578319U, herein referred to as ‘319.
Regarding claim 8, Jonas does not explicitly disclose wherein comprising a plurality of holes located opposite each other, one of the material and the other on the holder, at an interval determined by the manufacturer, along and consecutively on a part where the material is in contact with the holder; a plurality of bolts that are inserted through the holes so that the holder and the material are fixed to each other. However, analogous art, ‘319, depicts plurality of holes located opposite each other, one of the material and the other on the holder, at an interval determined by the manufacturer, along and consecutively on a part where the material is in contact with the holder; a plurality of bolts that are inserted through the holes so that the holder and the material are fixed to each other (see figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein comprising a plurality of holes located opposite each other, one of the material and the other on the holder, at an interval determined by the manufacturer, along and consecutively on a part where the material is in contact with the holder; a plurality of bolts that are inserted through the holes so that the holder and the material are fixed to each other for the benefit of ensuring the material and holder are tightly fixed to each other.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Heavener (US3574807 A) and CN103836240A, herein referred to as ‘240 and further in view of Martinez (US 2010/0024215 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jonas doesn’t explicitly disclose at least one pulley fixed on the body and changing a direction of a force by rotating around its own axis; at least one elastic element which is located around the pulley with one end of the arms and the other end subjected to the force and which enables the force applied to its end to be transferred to the arms via the pulley; trigger connected by the user to the elastic element and triggering the movement of the arms; the pulley that enables the arms to rate around the joint when the trigger is connected to the elastic element. However, molding art, ‘240, discloses using a pulley system in claim 7 in order to rotate the arms. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated pulley system since "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
‘240 does not explicitly disclose at least one elastic element. However, it is conventionally well known to incorporate elastic element since elastic material can drive a pivot between different positions. Martinez discloses an elastic means (elastic hinge 8) and an actuating means to raise and close the means which reads on the trigger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an elastic means and a trigger as taught by Martinez into the apparatus taught by Jonas for the benefit of raising and closing molding positions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/149,906 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claim 1 is merely broader than copending independent claim 1 of 19/149,906. It is clear that all of the elements of claim 1 are found in claim 1 of the copending application. The difference lies in the fact that the copending claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of the copending claim are in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of the instant claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated” by the “species". See MPEP 804 Section II (B). Since claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from the copending claim.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights