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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: bristle mounting means in claim 1 and 15 and mounting means in claims 1 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17-20 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 17 recites the limitation "the elongated member" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Carrington (USPN 4248543).
Carrington teaches a body (14) having mounting means (not labeled but corresponds to 24) for mounting a powder cartridge (12) thereon; and a brush head assembly (38) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means (42) for retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein.
With regards to claim 2, a powder dispensing arrangement (squeeze), in use, operable selectively to dispense powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
With regards to claim 3, the powder dispensing arrangement is operable to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses based on squeeze).
With regards to claim 4, the applicant does not positively claim bristles in the claims. Therefore this claim holds no patentable weight.
With regards to claim 5, an interchangeable, tubular powder cartridge mountable (12) onto the body, the powder cartridge being filled with a forensic powder (13).
With regards to claim 6, the brush head assembly includes a powder dispensing aperture (top of 30) disposed on an operative front end thereof and a powder cartridge mounting portion on an operative rear end thereof, the brush head assembly including a duct (30) extending between the powder cartridge mounting portion and the powder dispensing aperture, for dispensing powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles, in use.
With regards to claim 7, a dispensing arrangement operable selectively to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses based on squeeze).
With regards to claim 8, the dispensing arrangement includes an agitator (28) disposed inside the powder cartridge.
With regards to claim 15, a body (14) having mounting means (not labeled but corresponds to 24) for mounting a powder cartridge (12) thereon; and a brush head assembly (38) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means (via 42) capable of retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein; and a powder dispensing device (squeeze), operable to dispose powder from the cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
Claim(s) 1-8, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Laxalt (USPN 3256550).
Laxalt teaches a body (10) having mounting means for mounting a powder cartridge (40) thereon; and a brush head assembly (34) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means for retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein.
With regards to claim 2, a powder dispensing arrangement (22), in use, operable selectively to dispense powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
With regards to claim 3, the powder dispensing arrangement is operable to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses based on a shake).
With regards to claim 4, the applicant does not positively claim bristles in the claims. Therefore this claim holds no patentable weight.
With regards to claim 5, an interchangeable, tubular powder cartridge mountable (40) onto the body, the powder cartridge being filled with a forensic powder (56).
With regards to claim 6, the brush head assembly includes a powder dispensing aperture (22) disposed on an operative front end thereof and a powder cartridge mounting portion on an operative rear end thereof, the brush head assembly including a duct (46) extending between the powder cartridge mounting portion and the powder dispensing aperture, for dispensing powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles, in use.
With regards to claim 7, a dispensing arrangement operable selectively to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses based on a shake).
With regards to claim 8, the dispensing arrangement includes an agitator (60) disposed inside the powder cartridge.
With regards to claim 14, the powder cartridge is factory filled with the powder and includes a breakable seal (40), operable to break upon insertion of the powder cartridge into the body.
With regards to claim 15, a body (10) having mounting means for mounting a powder cartridge (40) thereon; and a brush head assembly (34) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means capable of retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein; and a powder dispensing device (shake), operable to dispose powder from the cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
With regards to claim 16, the powder dispensing device includes an agitator (60) removably inserted into an operative rear end of the cartridge.
With regards to claim 17, the agitator includes an attachment means (threading on 14) on an operative rear end thereof, allowing an elongated member (14) to be secured to an operative rear end of the cartridge.
With regards to claim 18, the attachment means is threaded and matched to a complementary thread on an operative rear end of the cartridge, allowing for screw on attachment and screw off detachment (figure 2).
Claim(s) 1-9, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wiley (USPN 7153053).
Wiley teaches a body (38) having mounting means for mounting a powder cartridge (12) thereon; and a brush head assembly (14) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means for retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein.
With regards to claim 2, a powder dispensing arrangement (50), in use, operable selectively to dispense powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
With regards to claim 3, the powder dispensing arrangement is operable to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses amount the user selects).
With regards to claim 4, the applicant does not positively claim bristles in the claims. Therefore this claim holds no patentable weight.
With regards to claim 5, an interchangeable, tubular powder cartridge mountable (12) onto the body, the powder cartridge being filled with a forensic powder (powder is not positively claimed, only the brush).
With regards to claim 6, the brush head assembly includes a powder dispensing aperture (52/54) disposed on an operative front end thereof and a powder cartridge mounting portion on an operative rear end thereof, the brush head assembly including a duct (44/46) extending between the powder cartridge mounting portion and the powder dispensing aperture, for dispensing powder from the powder cartridge onto the plurality of bristles, in use.
With regards to claim 7, a dispensing arrangement operable selectively to dispense measured doses of powder from the powder cartridge (dispenses amount the users selects).
With regards to claim 8, the dispensing arrangement includes an agitator (20) disposed inside the powder cartridge.
With regards to claim 9, the agitator includes a closure in the form of a disk (figure 4 shows that the bottom of 20 is disc shaped) at a front end of the agitator operable to close onto a shoulder at an inside of the cartridge front end.
With regards to claim 15, a body (38) having mounting means for mounting a powder cartridge (12) thereon; and a brush head assembly (14) attachable to an operative front end of the body, the brush head assembly defining bristle mounting means capable of retaining a plurality of circumferentially arranged bristles therein; and a powder dispensing device (20/42), operable to dispose powder from the cartridge onto the plurality of bristles.
With regards to claim 16, the powder dispensing device includes an agitator (20) removably inserted into an operative rear end of the cartridge.
With regards to claim 17, the agitator includes an attachment means (22) on an operative rear end thereof, allowing an elongated member (24) to be secured to an operative rear end of the cartridge.
With regards to claim 18, the attachment means is threaded and matched to a complementary thread on an operative rear end of the cartridge, allowing for screw on attachment and screw off detachment (figure 4).
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiley (‘053) in view of Huang (CN 117100052).
Wiley teaches a biasing means (24/30) operable to bias the agitator toward a closed position. The biasing means comprises an actuating mechanism (30) (claim 10). Wiley also teaches a rotational ratchet mechanism (24), operable to rotate the agitator when operated and at least one dispensing aperture (42/46), and the shoulder includes a matched dispensing aperture (52/54), which when both apertures are radially in register opens the inside of the cartridge onto the duct in the brush head assembly and, when both apertures are not radially in register, closes the inside of the cartridge onto the duct in the brush head assembly (claim 11). Wiley also teaches that the agitator includes a longitudinal planar portion operable to rotate in unison with the rotational ratchet (bottom of 20) (claim 12). Lastly, Wiley teaches that the disk and shoulder include two opposed cams operable to rotate the agitator when cooperating with the shoulder (22 and 38) (claim 13). Wiley however fails to teach that the biasing means includes a compression spring (claim 10).
Huang teaches a dispensing device that comprises a compression spring to assist in dispensing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiley so that the biasing means comprises a compression spring as taught by Huang to allow for the agitator to be urged in an engaged position thus allowing for easier dispensing.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laxalt (‘550) in view of Cao (CN 113243909).
Laxalt teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fails to teach a light source being attached to the brush head. Cao teaches a forensic brush with a plurality of light emitting diodes (13) on the front end of the brush head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laxalt so that there are lights on the brush head of Laxalt as taught by Cao to allow for the user to have an all in one forensic finger print collection device without needing separate devices to dust and illuminate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723