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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number 10 is not disclosed in the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 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 10 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.
The term “approximately” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” 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. It is unclear what the tolerances are to be considered “a length of approximately five feet and six inches” as claimed in Claim 10.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bibow et al. (US 8308209, hereinafter: “Bibow”).
In reference to Claim 1
Bibow discloses:
A stacked filter removal device (10), said device comprising: at least one intermediate segment (12 handle) having a first end (end 14 proximate to hand grip 18) and a second end (end 16 proximate to tool 72, 126); a handle segment (14, 18, “first handle segment 1”) that is telescopically connected to the first end of the at least one intermediate segment (Col. 5, ll. 24-67);
a filter engagement segment (fourth handle segment 4 having working end 16) that is telescopically connected to the second end of the at least one intermediate segment; and a hook (126) that is positioned along a distal end of the filter engagement segment, wherein the handle segment, the filter engagement segment and the at least one intermediate segment are configured to transition between an expanded position and a contracted position (“collapsing and extending of the working handle”, Col. 4, ll. 21-27), and wherein the hook is configured to engage an air conditioning filter (“Because the engagement tool may be removed from the handle, a number of configurations for engagement tools are possible. Such alterations constitute various embodiments of the air conditioning filter removal system and may provide a variety of functions, in addition to removing air conditioning filters,” Col. 7, ll. 23-28).
[Bibow, Col. 5, ll. 31-51] First provided is a handle 12. In the preferred embodiment the handle is fabricated of a rigid dielectric material and is configured to telescope. One skilled in the art would recognize, however, that the handle may be made of any natural or synthetic material. It is preferred that the handle not be electrically conductive so as to minimize the risk of electrical current transmission and resulting shock to a user. However, in other embodiments, conductive materials, such as aluminum or steel, may also be used to construct the tool herein described.
The handle has a hollow tubular configuration so as to minimize weight. The segments of the handle each have a hollow tubular configuration. The first handle segment 1, the second handle segment 2, the third handle segment 3, and the fourth handle segment 4 each have a respective first, second, third, and fourth internal diameter. The segments each have a first, second, third, and fourth respective external diameter. The first internal diameter being larger than the second internal diameter, the second internal diameter being larger than the third internal diameter, and the third internal diameter being larger than the fourth internal diameter.
In reference to Claim 2
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 1, further comprising: a light (56) that is positioned along the filter engagement segment (Col. 6, ll. 24-40; Fig. 11).
In reference to Claim 3
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 2, wherein the light comprises a light emitting diode (56) that is positioned along a distal end of the filter engagement segment (“The light may be a bulb or an LED, or a combination thereof” Col. 6, ll. 24-40; Fig. 11). 50
In reference to Claim 4
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 3, further comprising: a switch (52) that is positioned along the handle segment.
In reference to Claim 5
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 4, further comprising: a battery (54) that is positioned within the handle segment. (Col. 6, ll. 24-40; Fig. 11).
In reference to Claim 6
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 5, wherein each of the battery (54) and the switch (52) are in electrical communication with the light (56). (Col. 6, ll. 24-40; Fig. 11).
In reference to Claim 7
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 1, further comprising: a grip (22) that is positioned along a proximal end of the handle segment (“the handle may have grip configurations, such as a sleeve-like 22 grip or looped 24 grip. A combination of grips may also be used,” Col. 6, ll. 9-11).
In reference to Claim 8
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 1, wherein the at least one intermediate segment comprises a first intermediate segment (“second handle segment 2”) and a second intermediate segment (“third handle segment 3”). (Col. 5, ll. 31-51).
In reference to Claim 9
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 8, wherein the handle segment (18, 14, “first handle segment 1”) is connected to the first intermediate segment (“second handle segment 2”), and the filter engagement segment (fourth handle segment 4) is connected to the second intermediate segment (“third handle segment 3”). (Col. 5, ll. 31-51).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bibow et al. (US 8308209, hereinafter: “Bibow”) in view of DuVivier (US 5487576, hereinafter: “DuVivier”).
In reference to Claim 10
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 1. Bibow discloses in the expanded position the device includes a length as desired and would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
[Bibow, Col. 8, ll. 37-44] With respect to the above description then, it is to be realized that the optimum dimensional relationships for the parts of the invention, to include variations in size, materials, shape, form, function and manner of operation, assembly and use, are deemed readily apparent and obvious to one skilled in the art, and all equivalent relationships to those illustrated in the drawings and described in the specification are intended to be encompassed by the present invention.
Bibow does not explicitly disclose in the expanded position the device includes a length of approximately five feet and six inches.
DuVivier teaches a filter removing tool comprising a handle segment (14), intermediate segment (15) and a filter engagement segment (20) which can be extended to a distance of ten feet. (“FIG. 2 discloses the invention with the same reference characters as FIG. 1. Telescoping sections 16 are shown in their extended state. The tool although small in diameter would extend to a distance of ten feet,” Col. 3, ll. 13-16; Fig. 1-4).
Based on the teaching of Bibow and DuVivier, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to construct the stacked filter removal device of Bibow such that in the expanded position the device includes a length of approximately five feet and six inches, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In reference to Claim 11
Bibow discloses:
The device of claim 1. Bibow discloses each of the handle segment, the filter engagement segment and the at least one intermediate segment are constructed from any rigid material.
[Bibow, Col. 6, ll. 1-5] The handle has a gripping end 14 and a working end 16 with a length there between. The gripping end has a hand grip 18. In the preferred embodiment the hand grip and the handle are each fabricated of a dielectric material, though any material may be used in other embodiments.
[Bibow, Col. 6, ll. 59-64] Lastly provided in all embodiments is a filter engagement tool 72. In the preferred embodiment the filter engagement tool is fabricated of a rigid dielectric material, though, in other embodiments, any rigid material may be used.
Bibow does not explicitly disclose plastic material.
DuVivier teaches a filter removing tool comprising a handle segment (14), intermediate segment (15) and a filter engagement segment (20) which are constructed from plastic (“the hook and the tubular means being formed from a strong and lightweight material selected from a group of materials including plastic, fiberglass and KEVLAR,” Col. 4, ll. 39-41; Fig. 1-4).
Based on the teaching of Bibow and DuVivier, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the handle segment, the filter engagement segment and the at least one intermediate segment of Bibow by constructing them using plastic material as taught by DuVivier for the purpose utilizing a well-known material in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Malcho (US 10772443), Cole (US 10520216), Walker Jr. (US 8075031), Jones et al. (US 20110018290), Goodman et al. (US 5665145), Johnson (US 20040100109) disclose an extendable grabbing device that is relevant to the Applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYE SU MON HTAY whose telephone number is (571)270-5958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-3:00pm PST.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/AYE S HTAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745