DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after October 12, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. Claims 1-4 are pending and are subject to this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/12/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BubsBuilds.
PNG
media_image1.png
896
1846
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure Magnetic Bag Clip V4 by BubsBuilds
Regarding claim 1, with reference to the above Figure, BubsBuilds illustrates a magnetically-biased clip device (1) comprising:
a lever (2), a base (3), and a pivot (4) between the lever and the base;
the lever comprises a front lever arm (5), located forward of the pivot, and a rear lever arm (6), located rearward of the pivot;
the base comprises a base front (9), located forward of the pivot, and a base rear (10), located rearward of the pivot;
the rear lever arm (6) has a rear arm underside that contains a first magnet (7), and the base rear has a rear base underside that contains a second magnet (8),
the front lever arm (5) forms an upward transverse arch (11), which aligns with a downward transverse arch (12) in the base front (9), forming a median slot (13); and
a proximal underside (14) of the front lever arm (5) engages a proximal upperside (15) of the base front (9), such that, in the closed position, the median slot is fully enclosed.
BudsBuilds does not appear to explicitly disclose that the second magnet is adapted to magnetically attach the clip to one or more metallic surfaces.
However, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that a magnet would be capable of magnetically attaching to a metallic surface that is magnetic such as ferromagnetic metals. Thus, the second magnet illustrated by BudsBuilds would reasonably be considered to magnetically attach the device to one or more magnetic metallic surfaces, absent evidence to the contrary.
In regards to the claim limitation “wherein the first magnet has a first north pole and a first south pole, and wherein the second magnet has a second north pole and a second south pole, and wherein the first magnet and the second magnet are aligned so that either the first north pole faces the second north pole, or the first south pole faces the second south pole, thereby causing the first magnet and the second magnet to repel one another with a repulsive magnetic force that is inversely proportional to the square of a separation distance between the first magnet and the second magnet”, the Examiner notes that BudsBuilds discloses using push magnets (page 1) and one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that in order for magnets to push (i.e. repel) one another, the same pole of the two magnets should be facing each other and thus it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the first and second magnets such that either the north poles face each other or the south poles face each other in order to push/repel each other. The Examiner further notes that repulsive magnetic force is inherently inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the magnets and thus, the claim merely is reciting a fundamental principle of magnetism.
In regards to the limitation “adapted to hold a cigar or a cigarette” and “wherein the repulsive magnetic force between the first magnet and the second magnet biases the clip device toward a closed position, in which so as to hold the cigar or the cigarette”, as discussed above, the first and second magnets are considered to positioned to repel one another and thus cause the clip device to bias toward a closed position as illustrated. The Examiner notes that the use of the clip to hold a cigar or cigarette is considered intended use of the clip device and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. The device illustrated by BudsBuilds clearly contains a median slot that would be capable of holding a cigar or a cigarette sized to fit within the opening formed between the lever and base.
Regarding claim 2, BudsBuilds further illustrates that the base front has a front base underside that contains a third magnet (18). Similarly, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that a magnet would be capable of magnetically attaching to a metallic surface that is magnetic such as ferromagnetic metals. Thus, the third magnet illustrated by BudsBuilds would reasonably be considered to magnetically attach the device to one or more magnetic metallic surfaces in cooperation with the second magnet, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, BudsBuilds illustrates that the proximal underside of the front level arm and the proximal upper side of the base front have aligned longitudinal grooves (16) which together form a longitudinal forward channel (17), which would be suitable for holding a cigarette.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADEED QA'ID DRAKEFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-9499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/SHADEED QA'ID DRAKEFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755