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 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 implied phrases such as "the present invention". 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 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 lines 3-4 “a lower rod and a middle rod” should be –the lower rod and the middle rod--. Note a lower rod and a middle rod are positively set forth in claim 7 line 2.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the first side" in lines 9 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes these portions of the claims refer to –the front side— as set forth in line 3 and has interpreted it as such for examination.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 1, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 2-12.
Claim 5 recites that the filter body 1 is provided with “at least one third mounting hole” in line 6, however, “at least one third mounting hole” is already set forth in claim 5 line 4 and defined as part of the reinforcement piece 11. Further, the filter body 1 is understood to comprise only the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh mounting holes (100, 101, 102, 103), as recited on page 4 line 22 – page 5 line 1 of the specification, while the third mounting hole 112 is provided on the reinforcement piece 11 (see Fig. 1). Thus, for purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted the third mounting hole as part of the reinforcement plate only, not the filter body.
Claim 5 recites “the reinforcement piece is provided with at least one first mounting hole, at least one second mounting hole and at least one third mounting hole at front and rear sides thereof, respectively” in lines 2-5. From the claim wording, it is unclear which sides contain which mounting holes as “respectively” does not make sense in the context of the claim as only two sides are set forth for three holes. From Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner believes the Applicant intends to claim that the front side of the reinforcement piece 11 is provided with at least one first mounting hole (110), while the rear side is provided with at least one second mounting hole (111) and at least one third mounting hole (112), and has interpreted it as such for purposes of examination.
Claim 5 recites “the filter body is provided with…at least one fourth mounting hole, at least one fifth mounting hole, at least one sixth mounting hole and at least one seventh mounting hole at the front side and the rear side thereof, respectively” in lines 5-9. From the claim wording, it is unclear which sides contain which mounting holes as “respectively” does not make sense in the context of the claim as only two sides are set forth for four holes. From Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner believes Applicant intends to claim that the front side of the filter body is provided with at least one fourth mounting hole (100), while the rear side of the filter body is provided with at least one fifth mounting hole (101), at least one sixth mounting hole (102), and at least one seventh mounting hole (103), and has interpreted it as such for purposes of examination.
By virtue of their dependence on claim 5, this basis of rejection also applies to dependent claims 6-8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "at least one tenth mounting hole and at least one eleventh mounting hole” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as eighth and ninth mounting hole are set forth in claim 6, which is not in the chain of dependency.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the adjacent teeth" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that only “a plurality of teeth” is set forth in claim 1 line 5. For purposes of examination, the Examiner has interpreted this portion of the claim as reading –adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth--.
By virtue of its dependence on claim 9, this basis of rejection also applies to claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angler Issues "DIY sand flea rake" dated Oct 29, 2020, hereinafter “Angler”, in view of Exact Design's "Ultimate Sand Flea Rake" dated Dec 14, 2019, hereinafter "Exact Design".
It is noted that all citations to Angler or Exact Design are in reference to in the corresponding documents attached by the Examiner under NPL documents, along with the annotated images incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 1, Angler discloses a sand rake, comprising (refer to annotated images below):
a filter body (A), having an open filtering space and a plurality of filtering holes distributed across all sides thereof (holes along front, back, and both side faces), wherein a front side (B) of the filter body is formed as an inclined surface at an inclination angle and has a top edge with a plurality of teeth (C), while a bottom side (E) of the filter body is formed as a flat surface; and
a handle (F), disposed at a rear side (D) of the filter body.
PNG
media_image1.png
1037
1373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1064
1285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Snapshots from Angler Video
Angler fails to disclose a support component disposed in the filtering space of the filter body and having a sloping end corresponding to the inclination angle installed at the first side of the filter body, and a straight end installed at the rear side of the filter body.
In the same field of endeavor, Exact Design discloses a substantially similar sand rake comprising a support component (SC) disposed in the filtering space of the filter body and having a sloping end (SC1) corresponding to the inclination angle installed at the first side of the filter body, and a straight end (SC2) installed at the rear side of the filter body (note all orientations are defined with respect to the rear side as substantially level).
PNG
media_image3.png
1090
1534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Snapshot from Exact Design Video
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a similar support component in the sand rake of Angler, as taught by Exact Design, in order to provide a structural brace for maintaining the shape and rigidity of the filter body during use thereby enhancing durability of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the support component is constituted by at least one horizontal member (when sand rake is in a standing upright position, support component is oriented substantially horizontal/parallel to the ground).
Regarding claim 3, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 2, wherein the filtering space of the filter body is assembled with a single horizontal member serving as the at least one horizontal member (one horizontal member as shown above).
Regarding claim 4, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 2, wherein the filtering space of the filter body is assembled with one horizontal member serving as the at least one horizontal member instead of two horizontal members.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the sand rake with two support components in order to provide additional support and rigidity to the filter body. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skilled the art. In St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Refer to MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 9, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 1. Angler further teaches wherein adjacent teeth of the plurality of teeth are connected by a plurality of concave grooves (G, see below).
PNG
media_image4.png
946
1380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Snapshot from Angler Video
Regarding claim 11, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the filter body, when viewed from the side, exhibits a broad trapezoidal shape (see below)
PNG
media_image5.png
903
1342
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Snapshot from Angler Video
Regarding claim 12, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 1, wherein the teeth of the filter body are generally serrate and arranged in a uniform spacing configuration (teeth are uniformly spaced forming serrated top edge).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Angler in view of Exact Design as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tarantino (US 4167217 A).
Regarding claim 10, Angler in view of Exact Design discloses the sand rake as claimed in claim 9, wherein a top edge of each of the teeth is designed to be a flat surface (see above, tips of each tooth formed as a flat surface), but does not explicitly detail wherein a bottom edge of each of the grooves is also formed as a flat surface.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tarantino discloses a scoop rake comprising a plurality of teeth (18) having concave grooves therebetween, wherein a top edge (19) of each of the teeth and a root portion (21) each of the grooves of are designed to be a flat surfaces (Fig. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bottom edges of the grooves to be flat, as taught by Tarantino, as this is a mere simple substitution of rake edge capable of scooping sand/soil for another to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mierzejewski (US 20230148576 A1) discloses a clam rake. Orvis (US 20210105935 A1) discloses a rake system for scooping up aquatic debris such as mussels, shells, rocks, weeds, muck, clams. Fredrickson (US 20200128793 A1) discloses a scoop rake apparatus. Clahassey (US 20180169703 A1) discloses a sand sifter. Westgarde (US 20100263346 A1) discloses a debris collector. Guadalupe (US D599631 S) discloses a beach debris rake. Bramante (US 20050218044 A1) discloses a multi-purpose rake. Roberson et al. (US 20050045350 A1) discloses a scoop basket. Rohde et al. (US 5450713 A) discloses an aquatic weed trap. Russo (US 5417044 A) discloses a rake device. Petrillo (US 5110168 A) discloses a gold ball retriever. Holt et al. (US 5027533 A) discloses a shellfish harvester. Montez (US 4828690 A) discloses a rake for sifting debris from sand. Walker (US 4311332 A) discloses a shellfish rake construction. Sguazzin (US 4190279 A) discloses a clam rake. Berg (US 3979146 A) discloses a beach cleaning apparatus. Young (US 3862502 A) discloses a clam harvester. Doerr (US 3863237 A) discloses a lake raking apparatus. Thomas (US 3394483 A) discloses a bait catcher. Meyers (US 2504715 A) discloses a lawn rake. Theodore (US 2301524 A) discloses a sand rake. Smith (US 2050133 A) discloses a marine rake. Olaf (US 1782497 A) discloses a clam catching implement. Delvin (US 1250288 A) discloses a mussel dredge. Norman (US 1014250 A) discloses a rake. Lindau (US 10280577 B1) discloses a sand cleaning tool
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/ADAM J BEHRENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671