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 .
DETAILED ACTION
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously applied Aucoin reference have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner Note
The examiner commends the improved claim construction and points out that the claims are no longer rejected as fully anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of two or more references, however these rejections may be overcome. Specifically, the applicant may amend the claims to differentiate the claims from the applied references and/or argue that the combinations presented by the examiner are improper. As a suggestion, the examiner points out that claim 6 is somewhat broadly recited compared to the specification. Claim 6 recites “wherein the telescopic appendages are operated by a mechanical linkage to facilitate their movement.” The examiner has applied the Stramaglia reference herein to address these limitations. The applicant’s specification recites “The body has a handle (010) that will slide along the Y axis of the machine body. This will control the motion needed in the legs (005) of the tool. This motion will be will be transferred via wire rope, inside the body of the machine, to the legs. The retractable legs will be held in the outer most position via elastic force… When the slide handle (010) on the machine is pulled up the legs retract allowing the tool, with the wick temporally attached, to be inserted into the intended vessel. After the tool is close to the bottom of the vessel, the operator releases the elastic tension being held by the slide handle, this allows the legs to telescope outward.” The examiner points out that Stramaglia does not teach the particular configuration presented in the specification. It is important to point out that amending the claims to include one or more of these features would require further search and consideration. The examiner encourages the applicant to contact the examiner by phone if additional details are desired.
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 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CandlePhysics (NPL, https://candlephysics.com.au/, archived copy from 4/5/2023), hereinafter CandlePhysics, in view of Mahl (US 3318010 A), hereinafter Mahl.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, CandlePhysics discloses a tool for placing a candle wick assembly in the center of the bottom of a vessel, comprising:
an elongated body (See annotated figure, “Body”);
a wick shaft extending longitudinally through the body (See annotated figure, “Shaft”) and biased toward a retracted position by a biasing mechanism (See annotated figure, “Bias”), the wick shaft configured to secure a candle wick assembly at its distal end (“Candle Wick Centering Tool”);
a plurality of appendages mounted to the body and ending in terminations (The graduated steps of the body are “Made to fit multiple jars”);
wherein the wick shaft is actuated to deploy the candle wick assembly at a center of the vessel bottom (See figure depicting the base of the candle wick assembly deployed at the center of a vessel bottom).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
600
260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
810
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
CandlePhysics does not disclose:
the appendages selected from the group consisting of telescopic or articulating appendages, configurable to adjust a span between the terminations;
wherein the terminations are configured to engage the transition region between a bottom and a sidewall of the vessel to center the tool;
wherein each appendage is pivotally mounted to the body to articulate radially outward and inward, thereby accommodating vessels of varying sizes and shapes.
However, Mahl teaches:
the appendages selected from the group consisting of telescopic or articulating appendages, configurable to adjust a span between the terminations (“The flared lower portion 64 defines a tapered, and more specifically conical, inner surface 66 against which the outer portion of each of the convex upper ends 38 of the legs 14 bears. In this manner, it will be appreciated that as the adjusting member or bell 16 is raised and lowered, the upper ends of the legs 14 will be either moved inwardly against the biasing force of the spring 18, or allowed to move outwardly because of this biasing force, thereby in turn adjusting the position of the lower portions of the legs 14” column 3, line 1);
wherein the terminations are configured to engage the transition region between a bottom and a sidewall of the vessel to center the tool (Figures 3 and 4);
wherein each appendage is pivotally mounted to the body to articulate radially outward and inward, thereby accommodating vessels of varying sizes and shapes (“Each of the legs 14 consists of a relatively wide member engageable within one of the recesses 36 and pivotally mounted, below the convex upper or inner end 38 thereof, on the corresponding pivot pin 30” column 2, line 26).
PNG
media_image4.png
422
242
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
414
260
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CandlePhysics discloses a stepped configuration to permit centering the tool. Mahl teaches arms to permit centering the tool. The substitution of one known element (the steps of CandlePhysics) for another (the arms of Mahl) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the arms taught in Mahl would have yielded predictable results, namely, the ability to center the tool within a vessel Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CandlePhysics, in view of Mahl, and further in view of Emery (US 1583585 A), hereinafter Emery.
Regarding claim 3, CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, discloses the tool of claim 2.
CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, does not disclose:
wherein the appendages include a telescopic configuration that adjust their length to accommodate vessels of varying sizes and shapes;
wherein the telescopic motion of the appendages is biased outward away from the body;
wherein each telescopic appendage includes a series of graduated hash marks along its length, the hash marks enabling visual confirmation of a centered position and facilitating offset positioning.
However, Emery teaches:
wherein the appendages include a telescopic configuration that adjust their length to accommodate vessels of varying sizes and shapes (“The arms 3 and 4 with their various component parts are identical in structure and therefore but one will be described in detail. The arm 3 has a central bore 5 extending longitudinally thereof adapted to receive and to allow for the reciprocation of a plunger 6” page 1, line 71);
wherein the telescopic motion of the appendages is biased outward away from the body (“A suitable compression spring 8 has one seat in the base of the bore 5 and is adapted to surround the lower end of the plunger 6 and bear against the inner face of the shoulder 7” page 1, line 79);
wherein each telescopic appendage includes a series of graduated hash marks along its length, the hash marks enabling visual confirmation of a centered position and facilitating offset positioning (“The graduated scale 12 is formed integrally with or secured in any suitable manner to one side of the plunger 6” page 1, line 94).
PNG
media_image6.png
124
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of Emery’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include telescoping legs as is taught in Emery, in the tool as modified because Emery states “This invention relates in general to measuring and centering devices and more particularly to an apparatus for measuring inside diameters of cylinders and the like and determining the centering line of the bore thereof” (page 1, line 9) and “It is an object of my invention to provide a novel and improved device for measuring inside diameters and one which is capable of several adjustments to permit its use in measuring inside diameters of cylinders of many different sizes” (page 1, line 37). Therefore, including the telescoping legs as taught by Emery will permit determining the center many differently sized vessels thereby expanding usefulness.
Furthermore, the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, Emery demonstrates that an adjustable centering tool is desirable and therefore not a patentable advance
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CandlePhysics, in view of Mahl, and further in view of Stroh (US 0949856 A), hereinafter Stroh.
Regarding claim 8, CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, discloses the tool of claim 7.
CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, does not disclose a second biasing mechanism, urging the appendages outward from the body to engage the bottom–sidewall transition of the vessel.
However, Stroh teaches a second biasing mechanism, urging the appendages outward from the body to engage the sidewall of the vessel (“When it is desired to find the center of a circular aperture the legs 5 are manually moved toward the axis of the punch against the resistance offered by spring 8, their projecting heels 5b being inserted into the aperture and thereafter allowed to move into engagement with the wall of said aperture” page 1, line 56).
PNG
media_image7.png
588
292
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In view of Stroh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a second biasing mechanism, urging the appendages outward from the body to engage the sidewall of the vessel as is taught in Stroh, in the tool as modified because the court has held reversal of movement to be an obvious modification In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, Mahl teaches legs that are manually forced outward against an inward bias for locating the legs against an inner wall whereas Stroh teaches legs that are manually forced inward against an outward bias for locating the legs against an inner wall. This reversal of bias is therefore an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, discloses the tool of claim 2.
CandlePhysics, as modified by Mahl, does not disclose a mechanical linkage coupling the appendages such that they move radially in synchronized unison relative to the body of the tool.
However, Stroh teaches a mechanical linkage coupling the appendages such that they move radially in synchronized unison relative to the body of the tool (“6 indicates links, each of which has one of its ends pivoted to one of the legs 5 and its opposite end pivoted to a short sleeve 7, the latter being slidingly mounted on the sleeve 3” page 1, line 40).
In view of Stroh’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a mechanical linkage coupling the appendages such that they move radially in synchronized unison relative to the body of the tool as is taught in Stroh, in the tool as modified because a linkage provides additional points of connection and therefore a more robust arrangement.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CandlePhysics, in view of Wells (US 5105842 A), hereinafter Wells, and further in view of Stramaglia (US 1539700 A), hereinafter Stramaglia.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, and 10, CandlePhysics discloses a tool for placing a candle wick assembly in the center of the bottom of a vessel, comprising:
an elongated body (See annotated figure, “Body”);
a wick shaft extending longitudinally through the body (See annotated figure, “Shaft”) and biased toward a retracted position by a biasing mechanism (See annotated figure, “Bias”), the wick shaft configured to secure a candle wick assembly at its distal end (“Candle Wick Centering Tool”);
a plurality of appendages mounted to the body and ending in terminations (The graduated steps of the body are “Made to fit multiple jars”);
wherein the wick shaft is actuated to deploy the candle wick assembly at a center of the vessel bottom (See figure depicting the base of the candle wick assembly deployed at the center of a vessel bottom).
CandlePhysics does not disclose:
the appendages selected from the group consisting of telescopic or articulating appendages, configurable to adjust a span between the terminations, wherein the appendages include a telescopic configuration that adjust their length to accommodate vessels of varying sizes and shapes, wherein the telescopic appendages are operated by a mechanical linkage to facilitate their movement;
wherein the terminations are configured to engage the transition region between a bottom and a sidewall of the vessel to center the tool, wherein the appendages extend outwardly and downwardly at an angle from the elongated body and are fixed at a predetermined orientation relative to the body of the tool.
However, Wells, teaches wherein the terminations are configured to engage the transition region between a bottom and a sidewall of the vessel to center the tool, wherein the appendages extend outwardly and downwardly at an angle from the elongated body and are fixed at a predetermined orientation relative to the body of the tool (“The probe (6) includes a forked portion having two or more prongs (10). When the probe (6) is inserted into a test tube (2), the forked portion is at the leading end of the probe (6). When the probe (6) contacts the bottom of the test tube (2), the prongs (10) contact the periapical region (5). The prongs (10) have a span which exceeds the span of the apical region (4), i.e. the region to which the pellet is magnetically bound. Indeed, the span of the prongs (10) is sufficiently large so that they can not contact the apical region (4). In the preferred embodiment, after the probe (6) contacts the bottom of the test tube (2), sufficient force is applied to the probe (6) by spring action or other biasing means so that the prongs (10) slide to their lowest position within the periapical region (5). This sliding action causes the probe (6) to be positioned directly over the apical region (4)” column 3, line 40).
PNG
media_image8.png
582
302
media_image8.png
Greyscale
CandlePhysics discloses a stepped configuration to permit centering the tool. Wells teaches arms to permit centering the tool. The substitution of one known element (the steps of CandlePhysics) for another (the arms of Wells) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the arms taught in Wells would have yielded predictable results, namely, the ability to center the tool within a vessel Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
CandlePhysics, as modified by Wells, does not disclose the appendages selected from the group consisting of telescopic or articulating appendages, configurable to adjust a span between the terminations, wherein the appendages include a telescopic configuration that adjust their length to accommodate vessels of varying sizes and shapes, wherein the telescopic appendages are operated by a mechanical linkage to facilitate their movement.
However, Stramaglia teaches the appendages selected from the group consisting of telescopic or articulating appendages, configurable to adjust a span between the terminations, wherein the appendages include a telescopic configuration that adjust their length to accommodate vessels of varying sizes and shapes, wherein the telescopic appendages are operated by a mechanical linkage to facilitate their movement (“the rack teeth 18 on the rack bars 15 and 16 face so that upon rotation of the pinion 14, measuring bars 15 and 16 will move in opposite directions and in unison, one moving from the axis of the post 8 in the direction opposite to the direction in which the other one moves thus maintaining uniform distances between the axis of the post 8 and the engaging fingers 19 and 20 which are carried by the ends of the measuring bars 15 and 16 respectively” page 1, line 69).
PNG
media_image9.png
410
368
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
304
314
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In view of Stramaglia’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include telescoping legs as is taught in Emery, in the tool as modified because the court held that adjustability, where needed, is not a patentable advance In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). In this case, Stramaglia demonstrates that an adjustable centering tool (“constructed to facilitate the finding of the center of an article” page 1, line 10) is desirable and therefore not a patentable advance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CandlePhysics, in view of Wells.
Regarding claim 11, CandlePhysics discloses the tool for placing a candle wick assembly in the center of the bottom of a vessel, comprising:
an elongated body (See annotated figure, “Body”);
a wick shaft extending longitudinally through the body (See annotated figure, “Shaft”) and biased toward a retracted position by a biasing mechanism (See annotated figure, “Bias”), the wick shaft configured to secure a candle wick assembly at its distal end (“Candle Wick Centering Tool”);
a plurality of appendages extending outwardly at a predetermined radius relative to the elongated body, each appendage fixed in place and ending in terminations configured to engage a sidewall of the vessel (The graduated steps of the body are “Made to fit multiple jars”);
wherein the terminations engage the vessel to center the tool; and
wherein the wick shaft is actuated to deploy the candle wick assembly at the center of the vessel bottom (See figure depicting the base of the candle wick assembly deployed at the center of a vessel bottom).
CandlePhysics does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of appendages extend outwardly and downwardly at a predetermined radius and angle relative to the elongated body, each appendage fixed in place and ending in terminations configured to engage the transition region between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the vessel;
wherein the terminations engage the transition region to center the tool.
However, Wells teaches:
wherein the plurality of appendages extend outwardly and downwardly at a predetermined radius and angle relative to the elongated body, each appendage fixed in place and ending in terminations configured to engage the transition region between a bottom surface and a sidewall of the vessel;
wherein the terminations engage the transition region to center the tool (“The probe (6) includes a forked portion having two or more prongs (10). When the probe (6) is inserted into a test tube (2), the forked portion is at the leading end of the probe (6). When the probe (6) contacts the bottom of the test tube (2), the prongs (10) contact the periapical region (5). The prongs (10) have a span which exceeds the span of the apical region (4), i.e. the region to which the pellet is magnetically bound. Indeed, the span of the prongs (10) is sufficiently large so that they can not contact the apical region (4). In the preferred embodiment, after the probe (6) contacts the bottom of the test tube (2), sufficient force is applied to the probe (6) by spring action or other biasing means so that the prongs (10) slide to their lowest position within the periapical region (5). This sliding action causes the probe (6) to be positioned directly over the apical region (4)” column 3, line 40).
CandlePhysics discloses a stepped configuration to permit centering the tool. Wells teaches arms to permit centering the tool. The substitution of one known element (the steps of CandlePhysics) for another (the arms of Wells) would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, since the substitution of the arms taught in Cheers would have yielded predictable results, namely, the ability to center the tool within a vessel Agrizap, Inc. v. Woodstream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 86 USPQ2d 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Conclusion
UPDATED prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Darnell (US 2494287 A)
PNG
media_image11.png
682
450
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Lockhart (US 2748492 A)
PNG
media_image12.png
554
330
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Walker (US 1351592 A)
PNG
media_image13.png
304
390
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Lipscomb (US 2314149 A) “The rods 35 are provided with indicating marks 40, and the tubes 34 are provided with similar marks (not shown), so that all three arms can be extended by the same amount”
PNG
media_image14.png
594
294
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Zelnick (US 2826820 A)
PNG
media_image15.png
484
356
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Maurer (DE 3620607 A1) shows a tool for inserting a wick assembly where “a holder centering 18 is provided, which in the embodiment shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 consists of a crossbar 23 projecting beyond the rim of the cup, on the lower side of which two opposing conical flange segments 24 are arranged, which center on the upper inner edge of the container 3” citation from machine translation appended to the foreign reference
PNG
media_image16.png
506
312
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
578
180
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Cole (US 5425633 A) “guide arm projections 46 that extend outward toward the vessel wall 48 (see FIG. 1) to maintain central alignment of the combustion device 16” column 4, line 67
PNG
media_image18.png
422
440
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Leonard (US 5690484 A) “There are two leg panels 11, 12 which are of the same length. They thereby provide for automatic centering of the wick holder” column 3, line 52. This more explicitly shows terminations that make contact with the bottom of a vessel for centering a wick assembly.
PNG
media_image19.png
228
412
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Materna (US 5939005 A)
PNG
media_image20.png
542
544
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Cheers (US D987422 S)
PNG
media_image21.png
480
434
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Horvath (US 7736145 B1)
PNG
media_image22.png
526
288
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762