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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: holder should be the holder in the last line. 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 1 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 1, 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) 1-3, 5, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Martinez (US 2010/0024215 A1) and CN103836240A, herein referred to as ‘240.
Regarding claim 1, Jonas discloses forming table (figure 4) comprising a body (2); a material Made of a thermoplastic material (Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115) that is placed on the body to be subjected to a forming process and transformed from a regular structure into a glassy structure by means of heat,
At least one mandrel (14) that is located on the body to give shape to the material,
At least one frame (12) that enables the material to be attached onto the body
At least two arms (12a and 12b) that are located on the frame,
at least two bending elements located on the arms, at least one rotary element (22) to which both bending elements are connected, at least one rotary element to which both bending elements are connected (see figure 4),
Jonas does not explicitly disclose at least one trigger applying force to each bending element such that the material is placed on the mandrel by bending both of its edges simultaneously and enabling the material to be held at least partially mutually enabling the material to be shaped on the mandrel and enabling the bending elements to rotate there around thereby enabling them to rotate around the rotary element configured to form a part by heat treatment of material. Analogous art Martinez also discloses using elastic hinges and actuating means to raise and close the means reads on 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.
Jones does not explicitly disclose multiple pulley being located on the body in a stationary manner, thereby changing the direction of the force by making a rotational movement around their own direction. Analogous 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).
As for the limitation, at least one elastic element, one end thereof of being subjected to an applied force, passing over the pulleys and enabling the force applied to the end thereof to be transferred to the bending element by means of the pulleys, the pulleys enabling the bending elements to rotate on the rotary element by connecting the trigger to the elastic element, 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 2, Jones discloses wherein an axis throughout which the mandrel extends longitudinally, the bending elements being located mirror-symmetrically with respect to the axis ( figures 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 3, as for the claim limitation, the trigger being as a weight, thereby applying a gravitational force to the bending elements and enabling one to make a clockwise rotational movement and the other one a counterclockwise rotational movement on the rotary element, 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. Further, the weight is not considered a structural unit of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, Jones teaches wherein at least two apparatuses (14 or 22) being located on the bending elements (12a and 12b) so as to be mirror-symmetrical with respect to the axis (A), said apparatuses being placed and fixed to a desired position on the bending elements (see figure 4) by the user. Martinez discloses the elastic element (8) being connected thereto, thereby enabling the moment on the rotary element (9) to be changed (see claim 1). Further, MPEP 2144.04 discloses it has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. 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 elastic elements being connected since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, ‘240 teaches at least one hanger (81) extending outwardly over the apparatus (see figure 3) but does not explicitly disclose the elastic element being able to move together with the support elements with one end of the elastic element being located on the hanger and the other end thereof of the second pulley.
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). 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 as taught by Martinez into the apparatus taught by Jonas for the benefit of raising and closing molding positions.
Regarding claim 12, Jones teaches wherein at least one holder (32) forming the frame being located between the arms and ensuring the continuity of the form of the material by holding the material along at least one edge thereof, the position of the channel between the arms being adjustable by the user according to the size of the material by holder being slidable within the channel.
Regarding claim 13, 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 14, the claims are directed to the final product and not the apparatus. The prior art structure is considered capable of producing the final product.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Martinez (US 2010/0024215 A1) and CN103836240A, herein referred to as ‘240, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN214578319U, herein referred to as ‘319.
Regarding claim 6, Jones does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two holes, one thereof being located on the apparatuses and the other one on the bending elements so as to form mutual openings, and at least two pins, being inserted by a user into the mutual holes, thus enabling the apparatuses to be fixed at user- desired positions on the bending elements. However, analogous art, 319, depicts plurality of holes located opposite each other; 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 at least two holes one thereof being located on the apparatuses and the other one on the bending elements so as to form mutual openings, and at least two pins, being inserted by a user into the mutual holes, thus enabling the apparatuses to be fixed at user- desired positions on the bending elements for the benefit of ensuring the parts are tightly fixed to each other
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonas (GB2187132 A) in view of Martinez (US 2010/0024215 A1) and CN103836240A, herein referred to as ‘240, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Heavener (US3574807A).
Regarding claim 7, Jones teaches wherein a base (36) on which the body is located but does not explicitly disclose multiple grooves forming recess on the surface of the bending element that is close to the base, and at least one protrusion extending outwardly over the apparatuses and being provided in a form fitting manner to the grooves, thereby preventing the horizontal movement of the apparatuses on the bending elements. Analogous art, Heavener, discloses using multiple grooves (78 and 80) forming recess on the surface of the bending element that is close to the base (72), and at least one protrusion extending outwardly over the apparatuses and being provided in a form fitting manner to the grooves. 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 multiple grooves forming recess on the surface of the bending element that is close to the base, and at least one protrusion extending outwardly over the apparatuses and being provided in a form fitting manner to the grooves, thereby preventing the horizontal movement of the apparatuses on the bending elements as taught by Heavener for the benefit of positioning the apparatus.
Regarding claim 8, it is the combination of Jones and ‘240 that teach wherein the bending elements being mirror symmetrical with respect to the axis (A) and having a distance in between them which is manufactured determined (see figure 4 of Jones), at least one arm support arm (12a and 12b) extending from the end of each bending element (22) that is close to the axis towards the base (see figure 4). ‘240, discloses using a pulley system in claim 7 in order to rotate the arms. Further, MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated multiple pulleys since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. As for the trigger, ‘’240 teaches this in (2). taught by Jones in claim 7
Regarding claim 9, Jonas doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein at least two support elements being located on material so as to be mirror-symmetrical with respect to the axis thereby supporting the material as it is given shape during the forming process. However, analogous art, Heavener depicts support element 22 and 24 being located on the material so as to be mirror-symmetrical with respect to the axis thereby supporting the material as it is given shape during the forming process (see figure 4c). 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 in order to form seals along the flange [abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Jonas doesn’t explicitly teach wherein at least one channel forming throughout longitudinal opening on the bending elements, the support elements being located in connection with the apparatuses so at to be movable along the channel, thereby making the distance between the apparatuses adjustable. Analogous art, Heavener, depicts wherein at least one channel (between 28 and 34) forming throughout longitudinal opening on the bending elements, the support elements (22 and 24) being located in connection with the apparatuses so at to be movable along the channel (figure 4c). 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].
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. 19/149,891 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to forming table comprising a body, mandrels, frame, and holders.
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