DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 10 line 3 recites "fourth slot". However, it appears that Applicant intended to write "third slot", as page 10 lines 1-2 recite a third slot, and a fourth slot is not introduced until page 10 line 5.
Page 18 line 24 recites “a first slot 19”. However, it appears that Applicant intended to recite “a first slot 39”, as page 17 line 16 refers to element 19 as a first recess of edge component 17, and page 22 lines 18-19 refer to the first slot as element 39.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 13-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 13-20 recite the claim limitations “said elongate first slot” (emphasis added) and “said first slot”. Further, independent claim 1, (upon which claims 13-20 are dependent), recites the claim limitations “a first slot” and “said first slot”. Although it is apparent Applicant is referring to the first slot recited in claim 1, Applicant is reminded of the requirement of 37 CFR 1.71(a) for “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”.
Appropriate correction is required.
4. Applicant is advised that should claims 3, 5, 7, and 13 be found allowable, claims 4, 6, 8-12, and 14-20, respectively, will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
5. Claims 5, 7-12, 17, and 19-20 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 5 recites the limitation "said measurement indicia" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Although “measurement indicia” is introduced in claim 2, claim 5 is not dependent upon claim 2. As written, it is unclear if Applicant is introducing a new measurement indicia.
Claims 11, 17, and 19 are dependent upon claim 5, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies described above.
Claims 7-12 recite “said connector employable as a plumb bob.”
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “plumb bob” in claims 7-12 is used by the claim to mean “reference point” (connector) while the accepted meaning is “hanging weight.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It appears that Applicant intended to recite “said sliding member employable as a plumb bob”, as evidenced that the Specification page 21 lines 21-23 recite “As noted and shown in figure 9, loosening the connector 34 to a point where the sliding member 36 will rotate freely thereon allows the device 10 herein to show or measure a plumb.”
For the purposes of examination, Examiner will substitute “sliding member” for “connector”.
Claims 19-20 are dependent on claims 11-12, respectively, and therefore inherit the same deficiencies described above.
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.
6. Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins
(US 1618862 A).
In regard to claim 1, Collins discloses a measuring tool apparatus [combination square tool], comprising:
a planar body [square 2], said body having a first segment [Image 1; square 2 arm A];
said body having a second segment [Image 1; square 2 arm B] extending from a first end of said first segment, said second segment being perpendicular to said first segment [shown in Image 1];
said body having a third segment [blade 3c] extending from a second end of said first segment [blade 3c can slide along slot 11 to align with the end of arm A], said third segment extending in a direction toward said second segment at a 45 degree angle [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle facing square 2 arm B];
a first slot communicating through said first segment from a top surface thereof to a lower surface thereof [slot 11];
a sliding member [square 1], said sliding member extending between a first end and second end thereof [Image 1; square 1 has two ends] and having an elongated second slot communicating therethrough [slots 10];
a connecter [connections made of bolts 14 and screws 15 as described in col. 1 lines 32-42] engaged through said first slot and said second slot [shown in Image 1]; and
said connector being adjustable from a loose configuration wherein said sliding member will slide and rotate thereon, to a tightened configuration wherein said sliding member is in a compressive engagement against said first segment of said body to a removably fixed position [described in col. 1 lines 32-42].
PNG
media_image1.png
702
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1 – Collins, Figs. 1-2, Annotated
In regard to claim 13, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
It should be noted that if Applicant were to amend the above claim with limitations as to how the slots communicate – provided the amended claim limitations have criticality evidenced in the disclosure – such an amendment may overcome the above rejection.
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.
7. Claims 2-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Dahl (US 5813126 A).
In regard to claim 2, Collins further teaches the tool of claim 1 wherein a distance of said material is measurable using measurement indicia located on one or both of said first segment of said body and said sliding member [shown in Fig. 1].
Collins does not teach a ledge extending from a lower surface of said sliding member, opposite from an upper surface, that contacts the body in a compressive engagement, with said ledge engaging on a surface of a material being measured.
However, Dahl also teaches a measurement tool [speed square 10] with a sliding member [extension bar 30], as well as a ledge [bottom half of flange 34] extending from a lower surface of said sliding member opposite an upper surface thereof [shown in Figs. 1 and 3] which contacts said body in said compressive engagement [contact shown in Fig. 1, compressive engagement shown in Figs. 3]; and said ledge for engaging on a surface of material being measured [shown in Figs. 1-2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Dahl’s ledge which compressively engages a material being measured with Collins’ combination square tool in order to more conveniently mark a measurement material that is locked into place, as described by Dahl [col. 2 lines 43-54].
In regard to claim 3, Collins teaches the tool of claim 1.
Collins doesn’t teach a cutting edge portion with a first and second edge that has the first edge removably engaged to an engagement edge of the second segment of the body such that the cutting edge is trimmable adjacent to the second edge.
However, Dahl , Dahl also teaches a measurement tool [speed square 10] with a sliding member [extension bar 30], as well as a cutting edge [board B] portion having a first edge [edge against extension bar 30, shown in Fig. 2] and a second edge [other edge, shown in Fig. 1];
said cutting edge portion having said first edge removably engaged to an engagement edge [flange 14] of said second segment of said body [along the right angle portion of speed square 10]; and
said cutting edge being trimmable [col. 2 lines 43-67 describe cutting the board] adjacent said second edge thereof [shown in Fig. 4] to form a marking edge for imparting a cut line to material being measured [col. 2 lines 66-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Dahl’s trimmable cutting edge with Collins’ combination square tool in order to better cut or mark identical lengths using the same cutting edge, as described by Dahl [col. 2 lines 65-66].
In regard to claim 4, Collins in view of Dahl teaches the tool of claim 2.
Collins doesn’t teach a cutting edge portion with a first and second edge that has the first edge removably engaged to an engagement edge of the second segment of the body such that the cutting edge is trimmable adjacent to the second edge.
However, Dahl , Dahl teaches a cutting edge [board B] portion having a first edge [edge against extension bar 30, shown in Fig. 2] and a second edge [other edge, shown in Fig. 1];
said cutting edge portion having said first edge removably engaged to an engagement edge [flange 14] of said second segment of said body [along the right angle portion of speed square 10]; and
said cutting edge being trimmable [col. 2 lines 43-67 describe cutting the board] adjacent said second edge thereof [shown in Fig. 4] to form a marking edge for imparting a cut line to material being measured [col. 2 lines 66-67].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Dahl’s trimmable cutting edge with Collins’ combination square tool in order to better cut or mark identical lengths using the same cutting edge, as described by Dahl [col. 2 lines 65-66].
In regard to claim 5, Collins further teaches that said measurement indicia being located along said engagement edge of said second segment of said body [Fig. 1].
Collins does not teach that said first edge of said cutting edge portion in a sliding engagement with said engagement edge of said second segment of said body and a sliding of said cutting edge portion defining a depth gauge.
However, Dahl teaches that said first edge of said cutting edge portion in a sliding engagement with said engagement edge of said second segment of said body [shown in Figs. 1-2 and 4]; and
a sliding of said cutting edge portion defining a depth gauge [col. 2 lines 55-66 describe using the same board to make cuts of equal distance along new boards, thus the same board acts as a depth gauge when it slides along a new board along an axis of the cut distance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Dahl’s method of using a board as a depth gauge – as using a reference block of known dimensions as a distance gauge is a well-known engineering practice – with Collins’ measurement tool in order to better cut or mark identical lengths using the same cutting edge, as described by Dahl [col. 2 lines 65-66].
In regard to claim 6, Collins further teaches that said measurement indicia being located along said engagement edge of said second segment of said body [Fig. 1].
Collins does not teach that said first edge of said cutting edge portion in a sliding engagement with said engagement edge of said second segment of said body and a sliding of said cutting edge portion defining a depth gauge.
However, Dahl teaches that said first edge of said cutting edge portion in a sliding engagement with said engagement edge of said second segment of said body [shown in Figs. 1-2 and 4]; and
a sliding of said cutting edge portion defining a depth gauge [col. 2 lines 55-66 describe using the same board to make cuts of equal distance along new boards, thus the same board acts as a depth gauge when it slides along a new board along an axis of the cut distance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Dahl’s method of using a board as a depth gauge – as using a reference block of known dimensions as a distance gauge is a well-known engineering practice – with Collins’ measurement tool in order to better cut or mark identical lengths using the same cutting edge, as described by Dahl [col. 2 lines 65-66].
In regard to claim 14, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
In regard to claim 15, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
In regard to claim 16, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
In regard to claim 17, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
8. Claims 7-12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins in view of Dahl as applied to claims 2-6 and 14-17 above, and further in view of Logan
(US 20200307300 A1).
In regard to claim 7, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 8, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 9, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 10, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 11, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 12, Collins further teaches that said sliding member rotatable upon said connector while in said loose configuration [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles].
Collins in view of Dahl is not explicit as to using the sliding member as a plumb bob.
However, Logan teaches a measuring too square with pivoting arms such that they are employable as a plumb bob {para. [0037] describes the base arms 26 and 28 (best seen in Fig. 2) swinging freely to read a plumb angle}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Logan’s method of allowing a pivoting structure to hang freely to act as a plumb bob – a well-known engineering practice – with Collins in view of Dahl’s measuring tool in order to better determine plumb without having to use other tools, as described by Logan {para. [0047]}.
In regard to claim 18, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
In regard to claim 19, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
In regard to claim 20, Collins discloses an elongated third slot communicating through said first segment of said body [slot 12 of 3b communicates through 3b and square 2 arm A, allowing a connector to pass through, as shown in Image 1];
an elongated fourth slot communicating through said third segment of said body [slot 12 of 3c];
said elongated fourth slot running at a 45 degree angle relative to said elongated first slot [col. 1 lines 32-42 describes aligning elements including blade 3c at desired angles, therefore blade 3c could be positioned at a 45 degree angle relative to square 2 arm B]; and
said first slot in communication with said elongated fourth slot wherein said connector is positionable within said fourth slot [slot 12 of 3c and slot 11 of square 2 arm A share a connector].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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 M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855