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 .
Priority
Benefit of earlier filing date of 03/29/2022 of provisional application No. 63/325,021 is acknowledged as required by 35 U.S.C. 119.
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” (means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; the following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for.";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.
Claims 4 and 15 recite “the first and second back dial include means for advancing the second dial”. The three prong tests are:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a generic placeholder (means),
(B) the term “means” is modified by functional language (for advancing),
(C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
All three prongs are met and therefore this claim limitation is going to be interpreted to invoke 35 USC 112f; andreview of the specification (entire par. 0028) reveals means for advancing the second dial includes “a rectangular protrusion 14a on a top surface of the back dial 14” “interdigitates with one of a plurality of protrusions 13a on a bottom surface of a back dial 13 of the middle dial 7” “forcing it forward one digit”; means for advancing further includes “a front readout dial” and “gears”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, number “3” must be deleted.
Claim 3, line 2, “a right most arm” should read --a right-most arm-- (see “a left-most arm” in last line).
Claim 6, number “1” must be deleted.
Claim 12, “the sizing” should read --sizing--.
Claim 14, line 2, “a right most arm” should read --a right-most arm-- (see “a left-most arm” in last line).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 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 2 recites “an interior spring finger that holds the first, second and third dials are held in place” which is ambiguous.Examiner suggests amending claim as below to overcome this ambiguity:--an interior spring finger configured to hold the first dial, the second dial and third dial
Claims 3-5 are rejected due to dependency on rejected claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarn Bar (found at:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIGj83-MZ8M in view of Worden (US 0689447 A).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 13-14, Yarn Bar teaches (see annotated images below) a multitool (Knit Kit tool) comprising: a housing including a top cover and a bottom cover cooperating with the top cover to create a cavity configured to hold one or more tools of the multitool; the bottom cover including one or more storage compartments and a rear door configured to engage the one or more storage compartments; and a counter having a first dial representing the 1's place, a second dial representing the 10's place, (similar to the invention, at least portion of the counter is disposed within the housing).Counter of Yarn Bar is a two digit counter and not a three digit counter.
PNG
media_image1.png
1082
952
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
529
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
328
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
641
446
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Worden teaches a counter (adding machine) having first, second and third dials; an interior spring finger (spring L) that holds the first, second and third dials in place; the first dial includes a first back dial (E) which is fitted with a rear gear (G) to engage with a right-most arm of the spring finger (L), wherein the second dial includes a second back dial and is configured to engage with a center arm of the spring finger, and wherein the third dial includes a third back dial and is configured to engage with a left-most arm of the spring finger.
PNG
media_image5.png
762
644
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more dials as taught by Worden to increase the counts above 99.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Yarn Bar teaches (see annotated images below) the one or more tools includes a hook and pin.
PNG
media_image6.png
363
316
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Yarn Bar teaches (see annotated images below) the one or more tools includes a tape measure.
PNG
media_image7.png
540
312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Yarn Bar teaches (see annotated images below) the one or more tools includes a blade.
PNG
media_image8.png
362
412
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Yarn Bar teaches (see annotated images above) the one or more tools includes a needle gauge (needle sizers).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarn Bar in view of X as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ambielli (US 11213960 B2).
Regarding claims 6-7, combined device of Yarn Bar and X does not have the claimed lens.
Ambielli teaches (par. 60) a multitool (par. 1: “disk-shaped multi-tool device”) with a lens (par. 60: “lid 196 may be a transparent lens”) engaging an upper side of the top cover (top layer 190); the top cover includes a recess (compartment 198) formed in the upper side of the top cover, the recess being configured to receive the lens therein.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to add lens of Ambielli in combined device of Yarn Bar and X. Doing so would allow a user to see inside the top cover (see par. 60).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yarn Bar in view of X as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sullivan (US 10407806 B2).
Regarding claim 12, needle sizer/gauge of Yarn Bar has needle size markings, but it is not clear if both standard and metric sizes are marked.
Sullivan teaches a multitool (yarn-carrying and dispensing apparatus) with both standard and metric needle gauge (see par 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to have both standard and metric needle gauge depending on the size and type of needles being used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, combined device of Yarn Bar and Worden does not teach the claimed “means for advancing the second dial” in view of the above claim interpretation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723