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 § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erisoty et al. (USPGPUB 20070214674) “Erisoty”, in view of Shapiro (USPGPUB 20040154175) “Shapiro”.
Regarding claim 1, Erisoty discloses in figure 1, a measurement device, comprising:
a main body (12) to be disposed on an external surface (not shown);
a tape measure (10) movably disposed within at least a portion of an interior of the main body to move from retracted within the main body in a first position (Fig. 3) to at least partially extracted from the main body in a second position, and move from extracted from the main body in the second position to retracted within the main body in the first position, such that the tape measure measures a length of the external surface while extracted ([0011]);
a first side (24) of the main body (12)
a second side (26) of the main body (12)
Erisoty does not disclose a first folding ruler, comprising:
a first section to measure a length of a second surface, and
a second section movably disposed on at least a portion of the first section to measure the length of the second surface; and
nor, a second folding ruler, comprising:
another first section to measure the length of the second surface, and
another second section movably disposed on at least a portion of the another first section to measure the length of the second surface.
Shapiro teaches in figure 1, 2, and 4, a first folding ruler (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first section (section of ruler shown in Fig. 1 before first bend) to measure a length of a second surface (not shown), and
a second section (section of ruler shown in Fig. 1 after first bend) movably disposed on at least a portion of the first section (ruler shown in Fig. 1 is connected) to measure the length of the second surface (not shown); and
a second folding ruler (Fig. 1), comprising:
another first section (section of ruler shown in Fig. 1 before first bend) to measure the length of the second surface (not shown), and
another second section (section of ruler shown in Fig. 1 after first bend) movably disposed on at least a portion of the another first section (ruler shown in Fig. 1 is connected) to measure the length of the second surface (not shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Shapiro’s folding ruler on a first and second side of Eristoy’s tape measure, facilitating measurement of multiple surfaces simultaneously, improving efficiency and eliminating the need for multiple tools.
Regarding claim 2, Erisoty discloses in figure 1, the measurement device (Fig. 1) and the tape measure (10).
Erisoty does not disclose the first folding ruler and the second folding ruler.
Shapiro teaches the first and second folding rulers (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Shapiro’s folding ruler perpendicularly disposed on Erisoty’s measuring device, facilitating measurement of multiple surfaces in different directions, and eliminating the need for a separate measuring tool.
Regarding claim 3, Erisoty discloses in figure 1, the measurement device of claim 1.
Erisoty does not disclose the second section folds over the first section for storage.
Shapiro teaches in figure 2, the second section folds over the first section for storage.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Shapiro’s second ruler section fold over the first ruler section. This allows Erisoty’s measurement device to be more compact, improving portability and convenience.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erisoty and Shapiro, in view of Cosentino (USPGPUB 20080256816) “Cosentino”.
Regarding claim 4, Erisoty and Shapiro disclose the measurement device of claim 1. Additionally, Erisoty and Shapiro disclose the first section and the second section (Shapiro; Fig. 1)
Erisoty and Shapiro do not disclose a saw surface disposed within a channel to cut at least one object.
Cosentino teaches in figure 1, a saw surface (21) disposed within a channel (16) to cut at least one object (not shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cosentino’s saw blade in Erisoty and Shapiro’s measurement device, improving the device’s usability and eliminating the need for a separate cutting tool.
Regarding claim 5, Erisoty and Shapiro disclose the measurement device, and the main body (12).
Erisoty and Shapiro do not disclose a magnet connector removably connected to magnetically connect to an external object.
Cosentino teaches in figure 1, a magnet connector (4) removably connected to magnetically connect to an external object (not shown).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Cosentino’s magnetic connector to more effectively stabilize the measurement device to an external object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855