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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-15 are rejected herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 01/14/2026 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "24" have both been used to designate same element, “14" and "26" have both been used to designate the same element and element 12 in Fig. 1 is referring to a different element than the element in Fig .2. 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. 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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 should be amended to recite –The farmwork according to claim 10 made entirely form a plurality of framework member comprising: a top-hat portion and a return portion, where the top-hat portion comprises an open brim wall, an open side wall extending from the open brim wall, a crown wall extending from the open side wall, a closed side wall extending from the crown wall and a closed brim wall extending from the closed side wall, and the return portion comprises a return wall extending from the closed brim wall, and where the open brim wall, the open side wall, the crown wall, the closed side wall and the closed brim wall form, in cross-section, a top-hat shape and the closed side wall, the closed brim wall and the return wall for, in cross-section, a channel.
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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because claim one recites top-hat portion (12) and closed brim wall (24) as a different element. However, the drawing discloses these annotations referring to the same element. Similarly, return portion (14) and return wall (26) contain similar issues. Thus, making it unclear what the Applicant regards as the claimed invention. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
The recitation of claim 1 “a top-hat shape” renders the claim indefinite because the shape of a hat vary greatly. Thus, one would not know at what shape the infringement would occur.
Dependent claims 2-15 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Appropriate correction/explanation is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schwenk (U.S. Pat. No. 5807008).
Top-hat portion (12) and closed brim wall (24) pointing to the same element
Return portion (14) and return wall (26)
Regarding claim 1, Schwenk as best understood teaches a framework member comprising
a top-hat portion (hat defined by 5, 9 and S1 see annotated figure below) and
a return portion (9), where the top-hat portion comprises an open brim wall (S2 see annotated figure below), an open side wall (4) extending from the open brim wall, a crown wall (3) extending from the open side wall, a closed side wall (5) extending from the crown wall and a closed brim wall (S1) extending from the closed side wall, and
the return portion comprises a return wall (wall of 9) extending from the closed brim wall, and
where the open brim wall, the open side wall, the crown wall, the closed side wall and the closed brim wall form, in cross-section, a top-hat shape and the closed side wall, the closed brim wall and the return wall for, in cross-section, a channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
683
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Schwenk teaches the open brim wall (S2), the crown wall (3) and the closed brim wall (S1) are substantially parallel with each other and are substantially perpendicular to the open side wall (4), the closed side wall (5) and the return wall (wall of 9).
Regarding claim 3, Schwenk teaches the open side wall (4) and the closed side wall (5) are of substantially a same height.
Regarding claim 4, Schwenk teaches the return wall (wall of 9) is of substantially a same height as the open side wall (4) and the closed side wall (5).
Regarding claim 5, Schwenk teaches the framework member has an inner side surface (inner surface of S1 and 2) corresponding to an inner side of the top-hat shape and an outer side surface (outer surface of S1) corresponding to an outer side of the top-hat shape and a perpendicular distance between an open brim wall inner side surface of the open brim wall and a crown wall outer side surface of the crown wall is substantially equal to a perpendicular distance between a
closed side wall outer side surface of the closed side wall and a return wall inner side surface of the return wall.
Regarding claim 10, Schwenk teaches a framework comprising the framework member according to claim 1 (Col. 3; lines 5-12).
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 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 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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwenk (U.S. Pat. No. 5807008).
Regarding claim 15, Schwenk teaches the framework according to claim 10. However, Schwenk is silent to disclose the disclose the framework is made entirely from multiple instances of the framework member of claim 1. The Examiner takes the official notice that providing the framework made from multiple instances of the framework member is old and well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the framework made of plurality of framework members as recited in claim 1. The motivation would have been to simplify assembly and manufacturing. Additionally, it is noted that providing duplicated parts that provide predictable result is considered within the level of an ordinary skill in the art see e.g. MPEP 2144.04.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11-14 as best understood would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD IJAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6280. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 am-10:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
MUHAMMAD IJAZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3631
/Muhammad Ijaz/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
