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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains an implied phrase (i.e., "The present invention relates to ...") in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because it recites "an angle greater than 0 degrees and 180 degrees." Claim 10 is being further examined as though it recites "an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees." Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gorjup (US 2,725,662).
Regarding claim 1, Gorjup discloses a vermin trapping tool device comprising:
a body (including 16');
a first end (including 11 and/or 16) comprised of a loop (see Fig. 2); and
a second end comprised of a tip (including 12).
Regarding claim 2, Gorjup discloses the loop being comprised of a non-continuous loop (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Gorjup discloses a vermin trapping tool device comprising:
a telescopic body (including 16' and 10 within 16' extending to 12, i.e., 10 between 11 and 12);
a locking member (including 17 at 12, which locks 10 relative to 16');
a first end (including 11 and/or 16) comprised of a loop (see Fig. 2); and
a second end comprised of a tip (including 12).
Regarding claim 6, Gorjup discloses the locking member (including 17 at 12) locking the telescopic body at a length (locking 10 relative to 16').
Regarding claim 7, Gorjup discloses the locking member (including 17 at 12) being comprised of a twisting ring lock (in the form of a nut). The locking member (including 17 at 12) in Gorjup is considered to be a twisting ring lock because it locks by twisting and has a ring shape. Further, the instant specification only sets forth "a twisting ring lock" as an example of a locking member (see Specification, labeled para. 0029) and does not provide any specific or structural details of a twisting ring lock, thus the term is interpreted broadly.
Regarding claim 8, Gorjup discloses the loop (see Fig. 2) being comprised of a recessed area (within the center of the loop and/or where said loop is discontinuous).
Regarding claim 9, Gorjup discloses the vermin trapping tool device being comprised of a metal material (see col. 1, lines 48-70).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brogden (US 9,346,159).
Regarding claim 1, Brogden discloses a vermin trapping tool device (having a noose tool head, shown in Fig. 9, which is capable of being used for trapping vermin) comprising:
a body (including or of 12);
a first end (of 30, when 12 is used therewith as disclosed) comprised of a loop (see Fig. 9); and
a second end (of 82) comprised of a tip (see Fig. 1 or 2).
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 3-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden in view of Armstrong (US 5,810,408).
Regarding claim 3, Brogden discloses the vermin trapping tool device with respect to claim 1, as set forth above. Brogden does not explicitly disclose the body forming an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. However, Armstrong teaches a hand tool device comprising a body (including 11), wherein the body forms an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (see Fig. 1 or Fig. 7).
Armstrong is analogous because Armstrong discloses an elongated hand tool having a body that forms an angle greater than 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Brogden with the angled body means as taught by Armstrong in order to employ the device in an ergonomically efficient manner. (See Armstrong, col. 1, lines 49-63.)
Regarding claim 4, Brogden discloses a vermin trapping tool device (having a noose tool head, shown in Fig. 9, which is capable of being used for trapping vermin) comprising:
a body (including or of 12);
a first end (of 30, when 12 is used therewith as disclosed) comprised of a loop (see Fig. 9); and
a second end (of 82) comprised of a tip (see Fig. 1 or 2).
Brogden does not explicitly disclose the body being a telescopic body and the device comprising a locking member. However, Armstrong teaches a hand tool device comprising a telescopic body (including 11, 36 of 16, and 42 of 16) and a locking member (including 40).
Armstrong is analogous because Armstrong discloses an elongated hand tool having a telescopic body and a locking member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Brogden with the telescoping and locking means as taught by Armstrong in order to accommodate a height of a user for ergonomically efficient use of the device. (See Armstrong, col. 1, lines 49-63.)
Regarding claim 5, Brogden discloses the loop (of 30) being comprised of a continuous loop (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 6, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 4, Armstrong teaches the locking member (including 40) locking the telescopic body at a length (via 44; see col. 3, lines 18-37).
Regarding claim 7, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 6, Armstrong teaches the locking member being comprised of a button (40).
Regarding claim 8, Brogden discloses the loop (of 30) being comprised of a recessed area (see annotated Fig. A, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Brogden (US 9,346,159) annotated Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 10, Brogden and Armstrong teach the vermin trapping tool device with respect to claim 4, as set forth above. Brogden does not explicitly disclose the body forming an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees. However, Armstrong teaches a hand tool device having a telescopic body (including 11, 36 of 16, and 42 of 16), wherein the telescopic body forms an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees (see Fig. 1 or Fig. 7).
Armstrong is analogous because Armstrong discloses an elongated hand tool having a telescopic body that forms an angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the angled body means as taught by Armstrong in order to employ the device in an ergonomically efficient manner. (See Armstrong, col. 1, lines 49-63.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden in view of Armstrong as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fenstemaker (US 8,220,852).
Regarding claim 9, neither Brogden nor Armstrong explicitly discloses a tool device comprised of a metal material. However, Fenstemaker teaches a hand tool device comprised of a metal material (see col. 1, lines 27-30; col. 4, lines 8-13; and col. 4, lines 44-57).
Fenstemaker is analogous because Fenstemaker discloses an elongated hand tool comprised of metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the material means as taught by Fenstemaker in order to impart resilience and/or resist corrosion. Additionally, providing the above combination with metal material as taught by Fenstemaker is also use of a known technique (i.e., use of metal material) to improve a similar device (i.e., an elongated hand tool device) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(C).
Claims 11-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden in view of Prichard (US 10,094,647).
Regarding claim 11, Brogden discloses a vermin trapping tool device (having a noose tool head, shown in Fig. 9, which is capable of being used for trapping vermin) comprising:
a body (including or of 12);
a first end (of 30, when 12 is used therewith as disclosed) comprised of a loop (see Fig. 9); and
a second end (of 82) comprised of a tip (see Fig. 1 or 2).
Brogden does not explicitly disclose the body being comprised of a measuring line. However, Prichard teaches a hand tool device comprising a body (4) comprised of a measuring line (including 10 and/or 20).
Prichard is analogous because Prichard discloses an elongated hand tool having a body comprised of a measuring line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Brogden with the measuring means as taught by Prichard in order to easily measure depth and/or distances on the ground. (See Prichard, col. 1, lines 35-58.)
Regarding claim 12, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, Prichard teaches the measuring line (including 10 and/or 20) being in inch and foot increments (see figures). Although Prichard does not explicitly recite the units of increments, the figures show increments in sets of 12, which one skilled in the art would recognize as inches and feet. Additionally, Prichard expressly notes that English standard, metric, or combinations thereof are used for the markings in question (col. 2, lines 65-67).
Regarding claim 13, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 12, Prichard teaches the measuring line (including 10 and/or 20) being printed on the body (see col. 3, lines 25-49).
Regarding claim 14, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 12, Prichard teaches the measuring line (including 10 and/or 20) being engraved on the body (see col. 3, lines 25-49).
Regarding claim 15, in view of the modification made in relation to claim 11, Prichard teaches the measuring line (including 10 and/or 20) being comprised of a colored band (see col. 3, lines 25-49).
Regarding claim 17, Brogden discloses the tip (of 82) being comprised of a flat tip (see Fig. 1, wherein the end of 82 is flat).
Regarding claim 18, Brogden discloses the tip (of 82) being comprised of a rounded tip (see Fig. 2, wherein 82 has rounded edges).
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden in view of Prichard as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kindred (US 9,775,273).
Regarding claim 16, neither Brogden nor Prichard explicitly discloses a second end being comprised of a notch. However, Kindred teaches a hand tool device comprising a body (including or of 8), a first end (10), and a second end (58), wherein the second end is comprised of a notch (see Fig. 16).
Kindred is analogous because Kindred discloses an elongated hand tool having a second end comprised of a notch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the material means as taught by Kindred in order to contour to a user’s hand and/or to minimize soreness to a user’s hands. (See Kindred, col. 8, lines 28-60.)
Regarding claim 20, neither Brogden nor Kindred explicitly discloses a tool device comprised of a plastic material. However, Kindred teaches a hand tool device comprised of a plastic material (see col. 8, lines 28-67).
Kindred is analogous because Kindred discloses an elongated hand tool comprised of plastic. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the material means as taught by Kindred for a lightweight device. Additionally, providing the above combination with plastic material as taught by Kindred is also use of a known technique (i.e., use of plastic material) to improve a similar device (i.e., an elongated hand tool device) in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(C).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brogden in view of Prichard as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Janke (US 3,242,513).
Regarding claim 19, neither Brogden nor Prichard explicitly discloses a tip comprised of a pointed tip. However, Janke teaches a hand tool device comprising a body (including 12), a first end (including 14), and a second end (including 16) comprised of a tip (including 48), wherein the tip is comprised of a pointed tip (48).
Janke is analogous because Janke discloses an elongated hand tool having a second end comprised of a pointed tip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above combination with the tip means as taught by Janke for digging, particularly in hard ground. (See Janke, col. 2, lines 22-67.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Sharpe (US 629,475) discloses an elongated hand tool device having a first end comprised of a loop, wherein the loop is shown as both non-continuous (see Figs. 1-4) and continuous (see Figs. 5-9). Krueger (US 2,582,339) discloses an animal (e.g., vermin) restraining (thus trapping) device as set forth in at least claim 1. Kuss et al. (US 2015/0319908) teaches an elongated hand tool device comprising a body (including 14) comprised of a measuring line (including 16), wherein the measuring line is explicitly set forth as being in an inch increment, a centimeter increment, or a foot increment (see para. 0025).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joel F. Mitchell whose telephone number is (571)272-7689. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/JFM/10/22/25
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671