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 .
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 1-20 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, 6 and 20 recite the limitation of a mandible device with “nonmagnetic” and “magnetic” variations simultaneously. It is unclear whether the limitations of both variations are simultaneously required as the term “variation” implies alternatives. Applicant is advised to clarify if claimed embodiment includes “one of” the listed variations.
Claim 13 recites “said screen being configured for showing visual images of said camera”. This is indefinite as the screen is showing images from the camera, not of the camera which would require a camera observing the camera.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said plurality of lights” in the first line, not previously recited in the claim language in claims 1, 9, 10, 11-13 of which claim 15 depends upon. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “said plurality of control buttons, said switch, said battery, …, said plurality of lights, said camera, and said screen” in the fourth and fifth line. “Said plurality of control buttons, said switch, said battery, …, said plurality of lights, said camera, and said screen” are not previously recited in claim language in claims 1 and 18, of which claim 19 relies. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-5, 7-12, 14, 16-18 depend upon at least one of the claims rejected and therefore are rejected for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600).
Regarding claim 1, Buzby discloses an extendable pronged clamp device configured for facilitating in the removal of animal nests ([0005] lines 1-3, Fig 1), the extendable pronged clamp device comprising: a handle base, said handle base having a top surface and a bottom surface, said handle base having a pair of side surfaces, said handle base having a shaft surface and a button surface ([0085] lines 5-9, handle body 145); a handle protruding out from said bottom surface of said handle base ([0085] lines 5-9, handle body 145); a shaft protruding out from said shaft surface of said handle base (proximal tube 136), said shaft having a tubular body including an interior, said interior of said shaft defining a place for nesting an arm (distal tube 135, [0049] lines 1-16); a pair of mandibles being positioned at an end of said arm ([0072] lines 1-8, jaws 120), each of said mandibles having a plurality of teeth configured for providing grip upon an animal nest ([0073] lines 2-6, [0075] lines 4-12, inner surface layer 115), said pair of mandibles further including: a non-magnetic variation, said non-magnetic variation being configured for engaging with the animal nest; and a trigger being positioned proximate to said handle of said handle base (trigger 150), said trigger being a lever configured for being an actuator when pulled towards said handle, said trigger positioning said pair of mandibles from a closed position to an open position and vice versa ([0006] lines 1-9).
Buzby fails to teach a magnetic variation, said magnetic variation being configured for engaging with a plurality of magnetic elements. However, Van Zelm teaches handheld remote gripping device having “a magnet may be included as part of a built-in structure at the ends of the jaws 22 and 24 for retrieving small ferrous metal parts” (Col. 7, lines 9-11). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include magnetic jaws to provide more effective grabbing capabilities for ferrous metal pieces.
Regarding claim 2, Buzby discloses a handle with a grip, said grip being a plurality of mounds upon said handle, said grip being configured for providing a grasp for a user (handle 145 Fig 1, [0086] lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 3, Buzby discloses said shaft being in a fixed position relative to said arm (hollow tubes 135 and 136), said arm being extendable from an end of said shaft ([0049] lines 1-6, hollow tubes 135 and 136), said arm being rotatable within said interior of said shaft ([0013] lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 4, Buzby does not teach the pair of mandibles being coupled to end of said arm by a swing plate, configured for pivoting up to a ninety-degree angle relative to said arm. However, Van Zelm teaches said pair of mandibles (20) being coupled to said end of said arm (40) by a swing plate (30), said swing plate (30) being configured for pivoting said pair of mandibles up to a ninety degree angle relative to said arm (Col. 3, lines 10-19). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include a rotatable hinge to extend the gripping range of the user.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Buzby discloses teeth ([0075] lines 4-12) but does not teach the length of teeth being less than three and one hundred seventy-five thousandths’ millimeters. However, it has been held that where the distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is the relative dimensions, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardener v. TEC System., Inc. 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the teeth of Buzby to have a length of teeth being less than three and one hundred seventy-five thousandths’ millimeters, in order to optimize mandibles for grabbing wasp nests and small ferrous parts.
Regarding claim 7, Buzby discloses said trigger (150) being in mechanical communication with said pair of mandibles (jaws 120), said trigger being connected to said pair of mandibles (jaws 120) by a spring (360), said spring being configured for compressing when said trigger being pulled wherein positioning said pair of mandibles in said closed position ([0081], [0084]). However, Buzby does not disclose a pair of springs. In Re Harza (124 UUSPQ 378) teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new result is produced. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include a second spring associated with the trigger, in order to optimize spring force and tunability between mandibles.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Edwards (PGPub US 2017/0150020 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Buzby does not teach a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft. However, Edwards teaches a clamp device with a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft (60, Fig 8 shows circular pattern, claim 1) to illuminate areas to facilitate the manipulation of the grasping claw when retrieving objects ([0002] lines 14-19). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable pronged clamp device with a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft to illuminate area for user.
Claims 9-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Chandlee (US Patent 10,442,071).
Regarding claim 9-11 and 17, Modified Buzby does not teach an airflow system for providing pressurized air for expelling air upon pair of mandibles in mechanical communication with said trigger. However, Chandlee discloses an extendable handheld tool for the removal of an insect nest, the tool an airflow system to expel air to the working end of the tool (Col. 4 lines 53-56, Fig 7), controllable through a fluid switch (Col. 5, lines 21-24) on the handle, and a male hose connector attached to the end of the handle and configured for securing to a female air hose connector (coupling 342, Fig 3), a set of nozzles incorporated into the working end of the tool (carrier 560 Fig 5), each of said nozzles in fluid communication with said hose connector and configured for expelling air wherein one or more fluid or adjustment switch may be mounted to an integral part of a handle (Col. 5 lines 21-24) so that fluid can be selectively controlled (Col. 3, line 60-64) for the removal of remaining nest debris from a substrate of a structure (Col. 3 lines 7-11, Col. 4 lines 53-56, Fig 7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include the system of Chandlee to expel fluid upon the distal end of the tool, controllable by a fluid switch, to assist in removing/cleaning away nests.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Chandlee (US Patent 10,442,071) over Edwards (PGPub US 2017/0150020 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Buzby does not teach a camera positioned between said pair of nozzles, said camera facing said pair of mandibles. However, Edwards teaches a remote grasping device having a camera positioned central to a grasping claw, facing said grasping claw (Camera 52; Fig 8, [0025] lines 21-23) to facilitate the manipulation of grasping claw when retrieving objects ([0002] lines 14-19). A camera positioned central to the grasping claw would be positioned between the said pair of nozzles. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include with a camera positioned facing pair of mandibles to provide user visibility of the working surface.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Chandlee (US Patent 10,442,071) over Edwards (PGPub US 2017/0150020 A1) over Shelton (US Patent 10,163,309).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Buzby does not disclose a screen attached to the top surface of a handle base, said screen having a hinge positioning said screen from flat to open position.
Edwards further discloses a screen (25) mounted to the handle base (21), said screen being configured for showing visual images from said camera ([005], Ln. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include a screen for showing visual images from said camera to provide user visibility of the working surface.
However, Shelton discloses a remote gripping tool having a screen attached to the top surface of a handle base, said screen having a hinge positioning said screen from flat to open position (movable display 601 Fig 17A and Fig 17B) to enable a user to view said screen from various other angles (Col. 18 lines 58-62). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include the screen having a hinge positioning the screen from flat to open position to enable a user to view the graphical interface from various other angles.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Buzby does not teach a power button configured to actuate electrical attachments, located on a right surface of set of pair of side surfaces. However, Shelton further teaches a home button that activates graphical user interface, motor and any other suitable operations (Col. 10 lines 9-24). The location of the power button does not modify the operation of the device; therefore, the location of the power switch is an obvious matter of design choice (re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a power button in order to power on/off the electronic features.
Claims 14, 16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Shelton (US Patent 10,163,309).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Buzby does not teach a plurality of control buttons including a pair of pivot controls, located on the left side of pair of side surfaces, configured for positioning mandibles. However, Shelton teaches a remote gripping tool having a plurality of control buttons (articulation arm rocker 112, home button 114) attached to the side surfaces of the handle base, including a pair of pivot controls configured for adjusting distal end clamp device (articulation arm rocker 112 Fig 1, Col. 7 lines 31-60). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to have a plurality of control buttons, including a pair of pivot controls to control electrical attachments and to position mandibles.
Shelton discloses the control buttons only on a single side surface of the handle base and does not explicitly disclose providing control buttons on each of the side surfaces, however, it has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to have control buttons on both sides of the handle to enable larger or more buttons and a more ergonomic button layout.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Buzby does not teach a release button configured for disengaging said arm of said pair of mandibles. However, Shelton discloses a latch button for removing distal arm of clamping device (latch button 100 Fig 1, Col. 10 lines 24-29). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a release button mechanism to disengage pair of mandibles.
Regarding claim 18, Modified Buzby does not teach a charging port, in electrical communication with a battery, said charging port having an indicator when battery is charging. However, Shelton discloses a charge circuit for charging a reusable battery and a graphical user interface displays battery life data to the user (charge circuit 217 Fig 11, Col. 14 lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a charging port and battery charging indicator to charge reusable battery and indicate charging status.
Regarding claim 19, Modified Buzby does not teach a processor in electric communication with electrical components and switches. However, Shelton teaches a control circuit comprising a microcontroller configured to store and execute control algorithms to drive a motor, a GUI, and/or other electrical components (Col. 6 lines 1-21). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a processor to control various electrical components.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buzby (PGPub US2010/0021279 A1) over Van Zelm (US Patent 4,374,600) over Chandlee (US Patent 10,442,071) over Edwards (PGPub US 2017/0150020 A1) over Shelton (US Patent 10,163,309).
Regarding claim 20, Buzby discloses an extendable pronged clamp device configured for facilitating in the removal of animal nests ([0005] lines 1-3, Fig 1), the extendable pronged clamp device comprising: a handle base, said handle base having a top surface and a bottom surface, said handle base having a pair of side surfaces, said handle base having a shaft surface and a button surface ([0085] lines 5-9, handle body 145); a handle protruding out from said bottom surface of said handle base ([0085] lines 5-9, handle body 145); a shaft protruding out from said shaft surface of said handle base (proximal tube 136), said shaft having a tubular body including an interior, said interior of said shaft defining a place for nesting an arm (distal tube 135, [0049] lines 1-16); a pair of mandibles being positioned at an end of said arm ([0072] lines 1-8, jaws 120), each of said mandibles having a plurality of teeth configured for providing grip upon an animal nest ([0073] lines 2-6, [0075] lines 4-12, inner surface layer 115), said pair of mandibles further including: a non-magnetic variation, said non-magnetic variation being configured for engaging with the animal nest; and a trigger being positioned proximate to said handle of said handle base (trigger 150), said trigger being a lever configured for being an actuator when pulled towards said handle, said trigger positioning said pair of mandibles from a closed position to an open position and vice versa ([0006] lines 1-9). Buzby discloses said handle with a grip, said grip being a plurality of mounds upon said handle, said grip being configured for providing a grasp for a user (handle 145 Fig 1, [0086] lines 6-15). Buzby discloses said shaft being in a fixed position relative to said arm (hollow tubes 135 and 136), said arm being extendable from an end of said shaft ([0049] lines 1-6, hollow tubes 135 and 136), said arm being rotatable within said interior of said shaft ([0013] lines 1-6).
Buzby discloses teeth ([0075] lines 4-12) but does not teach the length of teeth being less than three and one hundred seventy-five thousandths’ millimeters. However, it has been held that where the distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is the relative dimensions, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardener v. TEC System., Inc. 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the teeth of Buzby to have a length of teeth being less than three and one hundred seventy-five thousandths’ millimeters, in order to optimize mandibles for grabbing wasp nests and small ferrous parts.
Buzby discloses said trigger (150) being in mechanical communication with said pair of mandibles (jaws 120), said trigger being connected to said pair of mandibles (jaws 120) by a spring (360), said spring being configured for compressing when said trigger being pulled wherein positioning said pair of mandibles in said closed position ([0081], [0084]). However, Buzby does not disclose a pair of springs. In Re Harza (124 UUSPQ 378) teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new result is produced. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include a second spring associated with the trigger, in order to optimize spring force and tunability between mandibles.
Buzby fails to teach a magnetic variation, said magnetic variation being configured for engaging with a plurality of magnetic elements. However, Van Zelm teaches handheld remote gripping device having “a magnet may be included as part of a built-in structure at the ends of the jaws 22 and 24 for retrieving small ferrous metal parts” (Col. 7, lines 9-11). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include magnetic jaws to provide more effective grabbing capabilities for ferrous metal pieces.
Buzby does not teach the pair of mandibles being coupled to end of said arm by a swing plate, configured for pivoting up to a ninety-degree angle relative to said arm. However, Van Zelm teaches said pair of mandibles (20) being coupled to said end of said arm (40) by a swing plate (30), said swing plate (30) being configured for pivoting said pair of mandibles up to a ninety degree angle relative to said arm (Col. 3, lines 10-19). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include a rotatable hinge to extend the gripping range of the user.
Modified Buzby does not teach a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft. However, Edwards teaches a clamp device with a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft (60, Fig 8 shows circular pattern, claim 1) to illuminate areas to facilitate the manipulation of the grasping claw when retrieving objects ([0002] lines 14-19). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable pronged clamp device with a plurality of lights in a circle around the end of the distal shaft to illuminate area for user.
Modified Buzby does not teach an airflow system for providing pressurized air for expelling air upon pair of mandibles in mechanical communication with said trigger. However, Chandlee discloses an extendable handheld tool for the removal of an insect nest, the tool an airflow system to expel air to the working end of the tool (Col. 4 lines 53-56, Fig 7), controllable through a fluid switch (Col. 5, lines 21-24) on the handle, and a male hose connector attached to the end of the handle and configured for securing to a female air hose connector (coupling 342, Fig 3), a set of nozzles incorporated into the working end of the tool (carrier 560 Fig 5), each of said nozzles in fluid communication with said hose connector and configured for expelling air wherein one or more fluid or adjustment switch may be mounted to an integral part of a handle (Col. 5 lines 21-24) so that fluid can be selectively controlled (Col. 3, line 60-64) for the removal of remaining nest debris from a substrate of a structure (Col. 3 lines 7-11, Col. 4 lines 53-56, Fig 7). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable pronged clamp device of Buzby to include the system of Chandlee to expel fluid upon the distal end of the tool, controllable by a fluid switch, to assist in removing/cleaning away nests.
Modified Buzby does not teach a camera positioned between said pair of nozzles, said camera facing said pair of mandibles. However, Edwards teaches a remote grasping device having a camera positioned central to a grasping claw, facing said grasping claw (Camera 52; Fig 8, [0025] lines 21-23) to facilitate the manipulation of grasping claw when retrieving objects ([0002] lines 14-19). A camera positioned central to the grasping claw would be positioned between the said pair of nozzles. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include with a camera positioned facing pair of mandibles to provide user visibility of the working surface.
Modified Buzby does not disclose a screen attached to the top surface of a handle base, said screen having a hinge positioning said screen from flat to open position.
Edwards further discloses a screen (25) mounted to the handle base (21), said screen being configured for showing visual images from said camera ([005], Ln. 8-11). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include a screen for showing visual images from said camera to provide user visibility of the working surface.
However, Shelton discloses a remote gripping tool having a screen attached to the top surface of a handle base, said screen having a hinge positioning said screen from flat to open position (movable display 601 Fig 17A and Fig 17B) to enable a user to view said screen from various other angles (Col. 18 lines 58-62). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to include the screen having a hinge positioning the screen from flat to open position to enable a user to view the graphical interface from various other angles.
Modified Buzby does not teach a power button configured to actuate electrical attachments, located on a right surface of set of pair of side surfaces. However, Shelton further teaches a home button that activates graphical user interface, motor and any other suitable operations (Col. 10 lines 9-24). The location of the power button does not modify the operation of the device; therefore, the location of the power switch is an obvious matter of design choice (re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a power button in order to power on/off the electronic features.
Modified Buzby does not teach a plurality of control buttons including a pair of pivot controls, located on the left side of pair of side surfaces, configured for positioning mandibles. However, Shelton teaches a remote gripping tool having a plurality of control buttons (articulation arm rocker 112, home button 114) attached to the side surfaces of the handle base, including a pair of pivot controls configured for adjusting distal end clamp device (articulation arm rocker 112 Fig 1, Col. 7 lines 31-60). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to have a plurality of control buttons, including a pair of pivot controls to control electrical attachments and to position mandibles.
Shelton discloses the control buttons only on a single side surface of the handle base and does not explicitly disclose providing control buttons on each of the side surfaces, however, it has been held that rearrangement of parts only requires routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify the extendable clamp device of Modified Buzby to have control buttons on both sides of the handle to enable larger or more buttons and a more ergonomic button layout.
Modified Buzby does not teach a release button configured for disengaging said arm of said pair of mandibles. However, Shelton discloses a latch button for removing distal arm of clamping device (latch button 100 Fig 1, Col. 10 lines 24-29). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a release button mechanism to disengage pair of mandibles.
Modified Buzby does not teach a charging port, in electrical communication with a battery, said charging port having an indicator when battery is charging. However, Shelton discloses a charge circuit for charging a reusable battery and a graphical user interface displays battery life data to the user (charge circuit 217 Fig 11, Col. 14 lines 40-49). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a charging port and battery charging indicator to charge reusable battery and indicate charging status.
Modified Buzby does not teach a processor in electric communication with electrical components and switches. However, Shelton teaches a control circuit comprising a microcontroller configured to store and execute control algorithms to drive a motor, a GUI, and/or other electrical components (Col. 6 lines 1-21). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date, to modify an extendable clamp device with a processor to control various electrical components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hutchings et al. (PGPub US 2007/0152457 A1) discloses a collapsable mechanical grasping device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RALPH D WILKINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6183. The examiner can normally be reached 730 - 5, Monday - Thursday.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/RALPH D WILKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619