DETAILED ACTION
In response to the Request for reconsideration filed December4, 2025
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed August 9, 2023 are accepted.
Abstract
The Abstract filed August 9, 2023 is accepted.
Specification
The specification filed August 9, 2023 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 – 13, 15 – 16, 18 – 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klein (US Pub. No. 2016/0069658).
With respect to claim 1, Klein discloses a tape measure (Figure 1) comprising a housing (10) configured to receive a flexible tape (12); a spring mechanism (As suggested in paragraph [0033]) configured to allow extraction of at least a portion of the tape from the housing and retraction of the tape into the housing; a first fractional indicia (1/4 inch indicia) along a first edge on a first side of the tape (Figure 7); and a first scale indicia (full indicia reading ONE, TWO, etc.) along a second edge on the first side of the tape (Figure 7), wherein the first scale indica extends at least about 36 inches along the second edge from a 0 point of the tape (Paragraph [0026] ).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
744
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to claim 2, Klein sets forth a tape measure wherein the fractional indicia are composed of a plurality of hash marks along the first edge of the tape (See Figure 7).
In regards to claim 3, Klein teaches a tape measure wherein the fractional indicia include actual fractional values (See Figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Klein shows a tape measure wherein the first scale indicia is a ¼ inch scale indicia (See Figure 7).
With regards to claim 5, Klein shows a tape measure wherein the first scale indicia is a 1/8 inch scale indicia (See Figure 7).
Referring to claim 6, Klein shows a tape measure further comprising full indicia along a centerline of the tape, wherein the full indicia are oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the tape (See Figure 7).
In regards to claim 8, Klein sets forth a tape measure further comprising a second fractional indicia (1/8 inch or 1/16 inch) along a first edge on a second side of the tape; and a second scale indicia, wherein the second scale indica extends about 36 inches along the second edge from a 0-point of the tape measure (See Figure 7 and paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 9, Klein teaches a tape measure wherein the second fractional indicia are composed of a plurality of hash marks along the first edge of the tape (See Figure 7).
With respect to claim 10, Klein shows a tape measure wherein the second fractional indicia include actual fractional values (See Figure 7).
Referring to claim 11, Klein discloses a tape measure wherein the second scale indicia is ¼ inch scale indicia (See Figure 7).
In regards to claim 12, Klein sets forth a tape measure wherein the second scale indicia is 1/8 inch scale indicia (See Figure 7).
Regarding claim 13, Klein teaches a tape measure further comprising a second full indica along a centerline of the second side of the tape, wherein the second full indicia are oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the tape (See figure 7).
With regards to claim 15, Klein shows a tape measure comprising a housing (10) configured to receive a flexible tape (12); a spring mechanism (As suggested in paragraph [0033]) configured to allow extraction of at least a portion of the tape from the housing and retraction of the tape into the housing; a first fractional indicia (1/4 inch indicia) along a first edge on a first side of the tape (Figure 7); a second fractional indicia (1/8 inch indicia) along a second edge of the first side of the tape (Figure 7), wherein the second fractional indicia include actual fractional values (Figure 7); a first scale indicia (full indicia reading ONE, TWO, etc.) along a first edge on a second side of the tape starting at a 0 point of the tape (Figure 7); and a second scale indicia (full indicia in a different language reading UNO, DOS, etc.) along a second edge on a second side of the tape starting at the 0 point of the tape (Figure 7).
Referring to claim 16, Klein discloses a tape measure wherein the first scale indicia and the second scale indicia extend about 36 inches from the 0-point of the tape measure (Paragraph [0026] ).
In regards to claim 18, Klein sets forth a tape measure further comprising full indicia along a centerline of the second side of the tape (See whole number indicia along the center of figure 7), wherein the full indicia are oriented perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the tape (Figure 7).
Regarding claim 19, Klein teaches a tape measure wherein the first scale indicia is a ¼ inch scale and the second scale indicia is a 1/8 inch scale (See Figure 7).
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.
Claims 7, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein (US Pub. No. 2016/0069658) in view of Hoffman (US 7,055,260).
Klein discloses a tape measure as recited in paragraph 6 above.
Klein does not disclose a scale indicia extending about 48 inches as recited in claims 7, 14, 17 and 20.
With regards to claim 7, Klein discloses a tape measure wherein one of the scale indicia extend about 1 meter (about 39 inches, paragraph [0026]) along the tape (See Figure 7). Hoffman discloses a measuring device comprising a tape blade (12) having a standard length such as 48 inches in order to provide a standard length commonly used (Column 4, lines 12 – 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Klein by providing a scale indicia extending about 48 inches along the tape in order to provide a standard length commonly used (Column 4, lines 12 – 15).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Klein and Hoffman disclose a tape measure wherein the second scale indicia extend about 48 inches along the second edge from the 0 point of the tape (as modified by Hoffman above).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Klein and Hoffman sets forth a tape measure wherein the first scale indicia and the second scale indicia extend about 48 inches from the 0-point of the tape measure (as modified by Hoffman above).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Klein and Hoffman teaches a tape measure comprising a housing (10 of Klein) configured to receive a flexible tape (12 of Klein); a spring mechanism (As suggested in paragraph [0033]) configured to allow extraction of at least a portion of the tape from the housing and retraction of the tape into the housing (See Figure 1); a first fractional indicia (1/4 inch indicia) along a first edge on a first side of the tape (Figure 7 of Klein); a first scale indicia (full indicia reading ONE, TWO, etc.) along a second edge on the first side of the tape (Figure 7 of Klein), wherein the first scale indica extends about 48 inches along the second edge from a 0 point of the tape (as modified by Hoffman above); a second fractional indicia (1/8 inch indicia) along a first edge on a second side of the tape (see Figure 7 of Klein); and a second scale indicia (full indicia in a different language reading UNO, DOS, etc.) along a second edge on the second side of the tape (Figure 7 of Klein), wherein the second scale indica extends about 48 inches along the second edge from a 0-point of the tape measure (as modified by Hoffman above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the reference to Klein does not teach the use of a "scale indicia" in connection with its measurement device, and Klein appears to be focused on the use of multiple languages on an otherwise standard measurement device.
It should be emphasized that "apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art." MPEP 2114. In In re Danly, 263 F. 2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959) it was held that apparatus claims must be distinguished from prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In Hewlett-Packard Co v Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the court held that: "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what it does." (emphases in original). To emphasize the point further, the court added: "An invention need not operate differently than the prior art to be patentable, but need only be different" (emphases in original). That is, in an apparatus claim, if a prior art structure discloses all of the structural elements in the claim, as well as their relative juxtaposition, then it reads on the claim, regardless of whether or not the function for which the prior art structure was intended is the same as that of the claimed invention.
In this case, Klein clearly teaches a measurement device, particularly a tape measure, wherein the tape includes measurement designations in a first language and a second language; and the measurement designations relate to the tape by providing a textual representation of distance from one end of the tape and may include measurements in various formats, including SAE, metric, or the like.
In addition, any special structural and/or functional aspect of Applicant’s invention that renders it patentably distinct over the prior art has to be clear from the claims. Applicant cannot rely on the specification or on arguments that he advances to the Examiner in an amendment. That is, he cannot rely on factors not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations form the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-1572 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-1065 (Fed. Cir.), cent denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988), in which it was held that various limitations on which the appellant relied could not be given meaning since they were not stated in the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2244. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thu, 8:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Laura E Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
February 18, 2026
/YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855