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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 merely recites that the nib is monolithic, which is recited in line 2 of claim 1. Claim 2 therefore fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap (US 6059477) in view of Kirita (US 6659672).
Regarding claim 1, Dunlap teaches a nib (10) for a writing instrument, the nib comprising: a self-supporting monolithic fibrous nib body (10) comprising an upper writing portion (20) being configured to deliver ink to a writing surface, and a lower portion (22) in communication with the upper writing portion, wherein the upper writing portion has a first width and the lower portion has a tapering width that decreases from the first width to a second width (at 22), wherein a first notch (38, 40) is disposed on a posterior side of the fibrous nib body and a second notch (42, 44) is disposed on an anterior side of the fibrous nib body, wherein the first notch and the second notch define a boundary between the lower portion of the fibrous nib body and the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body (Fig. 1).
Dunlap does not teach a at least one elongated beam, a void in a two-dimensional plane bounded by the at least one elongated beam, the void being surrounded by fibrous material of the fibrous nib body, wherein the void allows observation of the writing surface therethrough, wherein the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body comprises a writing beam superior to the void, wherein each side of the void is equidistant from the at least one elongated beam, the writing beam and an inferior piece of the upper writing portion such that the void is substantially the same shape as the upper writing portion.
Kirita teaches an elongated beam (13) and a void (17) in a two-dimensional plane bounded by at least one elongated beam (sides of 12), wherein the void allows observation of the writing surface therethrough (col. 2, ll. 22-27), wherein the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body comprises a writing beam (13) superior to the void, wherein each side of the void is equidistant from the at least one elongated beam, the writing beam and an inferior piece of the upper writing portion such that the void is substantially the same shape as the upper writing portion (Fig. 9b).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have modified the nib of Dunlap to include void in a two-dimensional plane bounded by at least one elongated beam, wherein the void allows observation of the writing surface therethrough, wherein the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body comprises a writing beam superior to the void, wherein each side of the void is equidistant from the at least one elongated beam, the writing beam and an inferior piece of the upper writing portion such that the void is substantially the same shape as the upper writing portion as taught by Kirita for the purpose of enabling a user to view the opposite side of the pen tip (Kirita, col. 2, ll. 22-27). It is noted that this combination would result in the void being surrounded by the fibrous material of the fibrous nib body of Dunlap.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the nib is monolithic (Dunlap, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the fibrous nib body comprises a plurality of fibers and a resin (Dunlap, col. 3, ll. 52-56).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the first notch and the second notch extend into the fibrous nib body from 0.1 mm to 1.5 mm (Dunlap, 0.030 inches, which is equal to 0.762 mm; col. 4, ll. 20-22).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the lower portion of the fibrous nib body and the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body are substantially equal in area (Dunlap, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, but does not teach that the lower portion of the fibrous nib body has an area greater than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the nib of Dunlap such that the lower portion of the fibrous nib body has an area greater than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body because Applicant has not disclosed that the relative sizes of the upper and lower portions provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap' s nib and the applicant' s invention to perform equally well with either the equal upper and lower portions taught by Dunlap or the claimed lower portion of the fibrous nib body that has an area greater than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body because both nibs are equally capable of applying liquid held in a reservoir to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, but does not teach that the lower portion of the fibrous nib body has an area lesser than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the nib of Dunlap such that the lower portion of the fibrous nib body has an area lesser than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body because Applicant has not disclosed that the relative sizes of the upper and lower portions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap' s nib and the applicant' s invention to perform equally well with either the equal upper and lower portions taught by Dunlap or the claimed lower portion of the fibrous nib body that has an area lesser than the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body because both nibs are equally capable of applying liquid held in a reservoir to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the void is a punched area in the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body.
The limitation “the void is a punched area” is being interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product-by-process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
In this case, the void taught by Kirita and the claimed void have the same structure.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the fibrous nib body has a thickness of 1 mm to 4 mm (Dunlap, W1 is 0.145 inches, or about 3.7 mm, see col. 3, line 67).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the at least one elongated beam of the nib comprises an anterior elongated beam (Kirita, one side of the hole in Fig. 9b) and a posterior elongated beam (Kirita, other side of the hole in Fig. 9b).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 10, but does not teach that the void is bordered on an anterior side by the anterior elongated beam having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, on a posterior side by the posterior elongated beam having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm, and on an inferior side by an inferior piece of the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to formed the nib of the combination such that the anterior and posterior beams each have a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that the size of the anterior and posterior beams provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the device of the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the anterior and posterior beams taught by Kirita or the claimed anterior and posterior beams each have a thickness of 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm because both sets of beams are equally capable of supporting and supplying ink to the writing beam.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Dunlap and Kirita to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 11, wherein the writing beam has one or more beveled edges (Dunlap, 24, 28).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 11, but does not teach that the writing beam is perpendicular to the at least one elongated beam.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the nib of Dunlap such that the writing surface is perpendicular to the sides of the nib that form the elongated beams because Applicant has not disclosed that the angle of the writing beam provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Dunlap and Kirita and the applicant' s invention to perform equally well with either the angled writing beam taught by Dunlap or the claimed perpendicular writing beam because both nibs are equally capable of applying ink to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 11, wherein the writing beam is positioned at an angle to the perpendicular defined by the at least one elongated beam (Dunlap, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 15, but does not teach that the angle is greater than 0° and less than 45°.
Dunlap teaches an angle of 45° (col. 4, ll. 18-21).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the angle of the writing beam of Dunlap because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular angle of the writing beam provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap's nib and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the 45° angle taught by Dunlap or the claimed angle that is greater than 0° and less than 45° because both writing beams are equally capable of applying ink to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 15, but does not teach that the angle is 9.5°.
Dunlap teaches an angle of 45° (col. 4, ll. 18-21).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the angle of the writing beam of Dunlap because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular angle of the writing beam provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap's nib and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the 45° angle taught by Dunlap or the claimed angle of 9.5° because both writing beams are equally capable of applying ink to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 11, but does not teach that the writing beam extends along a longitudinal axis from 1 mm to 2.5 mm.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the angle of the writing beam of Dunlap and therefore change the length the writing beam extends along the longitudinal axis because Applicant has not disclosed that the length that the writing beam extends along the longitudinal axis provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap's nib and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the writing beam taught by Dunlap or the claimed writing beam that extends along the longitudinal axis from 1 mm to 2.5 mm because both writing beams are equally capable of applying ink to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches the nib of claim 1, wherein the fibrous nib body has a length of 15 mm to 30 mm (Dunlap teaches a length of 1.15 inches or 29.21 mm, see col. 4, line 1), but does not teach a width of 5 mm to 10 mm.
Dunlap teaches a width W2 of 0.185 inches or 4.699 mm.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the width of the nib of Dunlap because Applicant has not disclosed that the width of the nib provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Dunlap's nib and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the nib that is 4.699 mm wide taught by Dunlap or the claimed nib with a width of 5 mm to 10 mm because both nibs are equally capable of applying ink to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nib of Dunlap to obtain the invention as specified in claim 19 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Dunlap and Kirita.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Dunlap and Kirita teaches a writing instrument, comprising: an elongated body (Dunlap, 48) comprising an ink reservoir (Dunlap, 58); and a nib of claim 1 disposed at an end of the elongated body (Dunlap, Fig. 4), wherein the lower portion of the fibrous nib body is disposed inside the end of the elongated body (Dunlap Fig. 4) and is configured to deliver ink from the ink reservoir to the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body, the upper writing portion of the fibrous nib body protruding outside of the end of the elongated body (Dunlap, Fig. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Dunlap does not teach a monolithic nib because the nib of Dunlap is made of laminated strip stock.
Examiner disagrees. Dunlap discloses that the nib “is preferably formed from a flat strip of stock made by felting of wool or other natural fibers. It is well known to those skilled in the art, however, that the strip may also be formed from needled synthetic fibers which have been resinated with crosslinking and/or non-crosslinking polymers to hold the fibers firmly locked to one another, or from a combination of needled synthetic fibers and natural fibers” in col. 3, ll. 49-56. And in col. 5, ll. 21-30: “the nibs are cut from strips of material derived from sheets of needled felt. Those skilled in the art will recognize that there are a variety of ways to form the nibs. In an exemplary method, however, rolls of polyester needle felt are converted into sheets of material. The sheets are resin-treated to provide the properties required by the particular application, e.g., flow and stiffness, and are dried in still ambient air. The sheets are then heat pressed to cure the resin and to provide a chosen uniform thickness.”
Neither of these descriptions include lamination. Instead, Dunlap teaches a strip that is a uniform structure of fiber and resin. As such, Dunlap teaches a monolithic fibrous nib.
Kirita also teaches a “a thick, one-piece structure of ink leader portion 12 and writing part 13 made up of a porous material without having any support member 16” in col. 6, ll. 61-64. Kirita teaches a monolithic nib.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights