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.
Claims 6 and 17-18 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.
Regarding claims 6 and 17-18, the term “cuboidal” renders the claim indefinite, as the normal use of the term indicates “resembling a cube”; (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cuboidal), while the current drawings clearly show a rectangular, parallelogram shape. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret this term to include a four sided 2D parallelogram (when viewed from the side as is seen in Fig. 2).
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.
(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 1-2, 6-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raia, US 20060117630.
Regarding claim 1, Raia discloses: A device for gripping a bank card (Figs. 2-3, card holder 200) comprising:
a substantially U-shaped front portion (Figs. 2-3, portion below 207 containing arms 201 and 202) with an open front (Figs. 2-3, 203) end and a curved back end (Figs. 2-3, location at which number 100 is located);
a first plurality of grippers (Figs. 1b-1c, fingers 101A and 102A) formed in apposition on an inner surface of an upper arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 201) of the U-shaped front portion, each of said first plurality of grippers extending downwardly therefrom;
a second plurality of grippers (Figs. 1b-1c, fingers 101B and 102B) formed in apposition on an inner surface of a lower arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 202) of the U-shaped front portion, each of said second plurality of grippers extending upwardly therefrom;
a back portion (Figs. 2-3, elongated top portion 207) with an upper surface, a lower surface and a back surface formed on a back end of the lower arm of the U-shaped front portion to extend outwardly in horizontal alignment therefrom (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Raia further discloses: an opening (Figs. 2-3, slot 204) formed through the upper surface and the lower surface of the back portion.
Regarding claim 6, Raia further discloses: each of the first plurality of grippers and each of the second plurality of grippers are cuboidal in shape. (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Raia further discloses: each of the first plurality of grippers has dimensions identical to each of the second plurality of grippers (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Raia further discloses: the first plurality of grippers are in vertical alignment with the second plurality of grippers (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 9, Raia further discloses: the first plurality of grippers and the second plurality of grippers are in vertical alignment such that a space is formed with a vertical distance therebetween that is sized to removably receive and secure the bank card ([0021] In the illustrated embodiment, there are four inner fingers (two on each side--101A, 101B, 102A, 102B) which are directly opposed and almost touching, such that they form a thin resilient slot (or pathway--106) into which the card is inserted. The card being of wider dimension than the slot, when inserted, compresses the fingers into the spaces 104, 105 around the fingers and creates a back pressure or gripping force. This gripping force keeps the card (not shown) from falling out--but the card can be removed by the user by pulling out with enough force--as the resilient fingers flex both inwardly and outwardly. If desired, the number of fingers could either be reduced or increased--depending upon the material used and the shape and size dimensions of the same. Likewise, the fingers could be arranged in patterns other than those illustrated, as long as the desired gripping ability is maintained.).
Regarding claim 10, Raia further discloses: the bank card is a credit card, a debit card or an ATM debit card (Abstract – “an ID card or the like”).
Regarding claim 11, Raia discloses: A gripping device (Figs. 2-3, card holder 200) for a bank card, comprising:
a card-holding portion (Figs. 2-3, portion below 207 containing arms 201 and 202) with a substantially U-shaped body having an open card-receiving end and a closed arcuate back end and comprising:
an upper arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 201) with a first pair of grippers (Figs. 1b-1c, fingers 101A and 102A) depending downwardly from an inner surface thereof and a lower arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 202) with a second pair of grippers (Figs. 1b-1c, fingers 101B and 102B) extending upwardly from an inner surface thereof, said upper arm and said lower arm extending in parallel from the closed arcuate back end and each having a front end surface that defines the open card-receiving end of the card-holding portion (see Figs. 2-3); and
a handgrip portion (Figs. 2-3, elongated top portion 207) with an upper surface, a lower surface and a back surface that is formed from the lower arm and in alignment therewith along a horizontal plane and with an opening (Figs. 2-3, slot 204) formed through the upper surface and the lower surface, said opening shaped to receive fingertips of a user (the opening being capable of receiving fingertips of a user is an intended use of the device - A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Regarding claim 14, Raia further discloses: the first pair of grippers is in vertical alignment with the second pair of grippers (see Figs. 2-3) and form a space therebetween that is sized to removably receive and secure the card within the card-holding portion ([0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Raia further discloses: the first pair of grippers has dimensions identical to the second pair of grippers (see Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 16, Raia further discloses: the bank card is a credit card, a debit card or an ATM debit card (Abstract – “an ID card or the like”).
Regarding claim 17, Raia discloses: A handheld gripper for a credit card (Figs. 2-3, card holder 200), comprising:
a card gripping portion (Figs. 2-3, portion below 207 containing arms 201 and 202) comprising an upper arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 201) with an upper front end, a lower arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 202) with a lower front end and a curved back end (Figs. 2-3, location at which number 100 is located) connecting the upper arm and the lower arm in a parallel relationship whereby the upper front end and the lower front end form a card-receiving opening therein (Figs. 2-3, 203, 105, 106), said upper arm having a first pair of cuboidal grippers (Figs. 1b-1c, fingers 101A and 102A) depending from its inner surface and said lower arm having a second pair of cuboidal grippers extending upwardly from its inner surface in vertical alignment with the first pair of cuboidal grippers with a vertical distance therebetween sized to removably receive and grip the card ([0021]);
and a handheld portion (Figs. 2-3, elongated top portion 207) comprising a flat upper surface disposed in parallel with a flat lower surface and a back surface and formed from a lower back end of the lower arm to extend rearwardly along a horizontal plane therefrom, said handheld portion having an opening (Figs. 2-3, slot 204) disposed through the flat upper surface and the flat lower surface shaped to receive fingertips of a user therein (the opening being capable of receiving fingertips of a user is an intended use of the device - A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim).
Regarding claim 18, Raia further discloses: the first pair of cuboidal grippers has dimensions identical to the second pair of cuboidal grippers (see Figs. 2-3). .
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.
Claims 3-5, 12-13, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Raia, US 20060117630.
Regarding claim 3, Raia further discloses: the opening has a crescent shape bounded by a beveled (see below 103 combination) inner surface (Figs. 2-3, circular elements 205, 206).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 4, Raia further discloses: the upper arm (Figs. 2-3, arm 201) comprises a beveled (see below 103 combination) upper front surface (see Fig. 2), the lower arm comprises a beveled (see below 103 combination) lower front surface (see Fig. 2) or the curved back end comprises a beveled outer surface and a beveled (see below 103 combination) inner surface or a combination thereof (see Figs. 2-3).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 5, Raia further discloses: the back surface (Figs. 2-3, elongated top portion 207) of the back portion is beveled (see Figs. 2-3).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 12, Raia further discloses: the front end surface of the upper arm, the front end surface of the lower arm, the arcuate back end, and the back surface of the handgrip portion are beveled (see Figs. 2-3).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 13, Raia further discloses: the opening through the handgrip portion has a crescent shape (Figs. 2-3, circular elements 205, 206) and bounded by a beveled (see below 103 combination) inner surface.
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 19, Raia further discloses: the opening through the handheld portion is crescent shaped and bounded by a beveled (see below 103 combination) surface (see Figs. 2-3).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Regarding claim 20, Raia further discloses: the upper front end of the upper arm, the lower front end of the lower arm, the curved back end, and the back surface of the handheld portion are beveled (see below 103 combination)(see Figs. 2-3).
Raia does not explicitly disclose: “beveled” surfaces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize beveled edges and surfaces in the machining, construction of the Raia device, as beveling the edges is an extremely common manufacturing process that has been in use for hundreds of years. This feature is in fact so common that it is nearly never mentioned in device specifications, while being nearly universally present. The Examiner would note the likelihood that despite silence on the feature, the Raia art most likely does in fact have beveled edges on all coincidental planes that are claimed, despite not discussing the feature. As a matter of fact, on the outer perimeter of the device, beveled edges can clearly be seen. There exist a numerosity of benefits to this feature – beveled surfaces are less likely to cut the user, less likely to chip and/or break, both of which increase user safety. Beveled edges give the product a more finished appearance, which increases salability of the product. Finally, beveled edges are more comfortable to use, especially when the device is handheld. The Examiner notes further that the current application does not establish any criticality for the bevel feature, merely the fact that it exists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731