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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 1 of the specification includes Chinese text in parenthesis. A machine translation of this excerpt provided “smoke presser” as a translation which is presumably an alternative nomenclature to “cigarette presser” to which it is adjacent in the specification. If the text is redundant, it may simply be omitted to resolve the objection. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a functional component” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A functional component (in other words, a component for performing a function) is listed in the applicant’s specification comprising “an auxiliary tool such as a cigarette presser and a screwdriver.” Therefore, “a functional component” will be interpreted as an auxiliary tool such as a cigarette presser, a screwdriver, or an equivalent.
Factors that will support a conclusion that the prior art element is an equivalent are:
(A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (An internal adhesive sealing the inner surfaces of an envelope pocket was not held to be equivalent to an adhesive on a flap which attached to the outside of the pocket. Both the claimed invention and the accused device performed the same function of closing the envelope, but the accused device performed the function in a substantially different way (by an internal adhesive on the inside of the pocket) with a substantially different result (the adhesive attached the inner surfaces of both sides of the pocket)); Odetics Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977). The concepts of equivalents as set forth in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products, 339 U.S. 605, 85 USPQ 328 (1950) are relevant to any "equivalents" determination. Polumbo v. Don-Joy Co., 762 F.2d 969, 975 n.4, 226 USPQ 5, 8-9 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
(B) A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the interchangeability of the element shown in the prior art for the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int’ l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1316, 50 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus. Inc., 145 F.3d 1303, 1309, 46 USPQ2d 1752, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 193 USPQ 449, 461 (Ct. Cl. 1977); Data Line Corp. v. Micro Technologies, Inc., 813 F.2d 1196, 1 USPQ2d 2052 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
(C) There are insubstantial differences between the prior art element and the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. IMS Technology, Inc. v. Haas Automation, Inc., 206 F.3d 1422, 1436, 54 USPQ2d 1129, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865, 1875 (1997); Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 25 USPQ2d 1451 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Caterpillar Inc. v. Deere & Co., 224 F.3d 1374, 56 USPQ2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (A structure lacking several components of the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function and also differing in the number and size of the parts may be insubstantially different from the disclosed structure. The limitation in a means- (or step-) plus-function claim is the overall structure corresponding to the claimed function. The individual components of an overall structure that corresponds to the claimed function are not claim limitations. Also, potential advantages of a structure that do not relate to the claimed function should not be considered in an equivalents determination under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Genoud (US 3220420 A), hereinafter Genoud.
Regarding claim 1, Genoud discloses a multifunctional ignition device, comprising
an ignition body, wherein the ignition body comprises a housing (“The lighter includes a cap or head 2, a casing 3 and a fuel container 4” column 1, line 59), a functional component (“The lower end of the rod 6 is closed by a small plate 9 forming the pipe tamper” column 1, line 67) and a clamping sleeve in slip fit with the functional component (“A spring 13” column 2, line 10 and “pressure of the portions of the spring which bear against the rod 6” column 2, line 25); and
an accommodating cavity perforating two end faces of the housing in a length direction and used for the arrangement of the clamping sleeve is provided on one side of the housing in a width direction (The cavity housing elements 5, 6, 13, etc).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Genoud, in view of Lin (US 4846667 A), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 2, Genoud discloses the multifunctional ignition device according to claim 1, wherein the functional component comprises a tool pull rod (6) in slip fit with the clamping sleeve (13);
the tool pull rod (6) is in slip fit with the clamping sleeve (13);
a slip through port is further provided on a side wall of the housing (“a slot 12 cut in the wall 3a of the casing 3” column 2, line 6).
Genoud does not disclose wherein the functional component comprises a windshield sheet disposed at an end portion of the tool pull rod and used for resisting wind;
an inner wall of the windshield sheet is fitted with an outer wall of the housing;
the slip through port for the slipping of the windshield sheet; and
the slip through port perforates through the top of the housing and is in communication with the accommodating cavity.
However, Lin teaches wherein the functional component comprises a windshield sheet disposed at an end portion of the tool pull rod and used for resisting wind (“the semi-closed space of the cap 2 and connecting piece 21 obviously function to prevent the ignited fire 31 of the lighter 3 from being extinguished by any unexpected wind or rain” column 2, line 9);
an inner wall of the windshield sheet is fitted with an outer wall of the housing (Figure 2);
the slip through port for the slipping of the windshield sheet (“The shell 1 is provided with a longitudinal gap 11 on its back surface” column 1, line 50); and
the slip through port perforates through the top of the housing and is in communication with the accommodating cavity (Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
480
260
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Lin’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a windshield as is taught in Lin, in the multifunctional ignition device disclosed by Genoud because Lin states “The primary object of the present invention is to provide a lighter with a windproof and rainproof assembly including a safety assembly for preventing the ignited fire from being extinguished by unexpected wind or rain” (column 1, line 20). Therefore, including the windshield will prevent unintentional extinguishing of the flame of Genoud. Additionally, the court has held combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 163 USPQ 673 (1969). In this case, Genoud discloses functional component (tamper), but is silent on a windshield. Lin teaches a windshield. The combination of these references results, predictably, in no more or less than the sum of the constituent parts. The court has also held that “the convenience of putting… together… elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience does not produce a new or different function.” Id. at 60, 163 USPQ at 674.
Regarding claim 10, Genoud, as modified by Lin, discloses the multifunctional ignition device according to claim 2, wherein a cigarette presser or screwdriver mechanism is provided at an end portion of the other end of an end of the tool pull rod (“The lower end of the rod 6 is closed by a small plate 9 forming the pipe tamper” column 1, line 67. Tobacco/pipe tamper is presumed synonymous to cigarette presser, but is at least equivalent based on one or more of the factors listed in the claim interpretation section above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests a multifunctional ignition device with all of the limitations of claim 3.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein a mounting groove is provided on one side of the windshield sheet away from a side wall of the housing, a heat-insulating sheet is embedded on the mounting groove, and an anti-slip strip is arranged on one side of the heat-insulating sheet away from the windshield sheet.” The closest prior art of record to claim 3 is Genoud and Lin (cited above). Genoud discloses an anti-slip strip (“a milled knob 7 carried by a lug 8” column 1, line 65). Lin teaches a similarly disposed manipulator away from the windshield sheet (“The back surface of the connecting piece 21 is provided with a control piece 22” column 1, line 59). However, neither reference teaches the anti-slip strip is arranged on one side of a heat-insulating sheet or that the heat-insulating sheet is embedded on a mounting groove. No art was found such that further modification of Genoud and Lin would have rendered the claim obvious. Therefore, these limitations, when combined with every other limitation of the claim (including the base and intermediate claims), distinguish the claim from the prior art.
Claims 4-9 are objected to at least because they depend from claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aronson (US 1800334 A)
PNG
media_image4.png
296
394
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Horning (US 2505047 A)
PNG
media_image5.png
320
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Bachman (US 2505047 A)
PNG
media_image6.png
346
252
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wismer (US 2894515 A)
PNG
media_image7.png
348
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Buckley (US 3263690 A)
PNG
media_image8.png
450
208
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Herko (US 4634374 A)
PNG
media_image9.png
368
202
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
230
184
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Lee (KR 200170609 Y1)
PNG
media_image11.png
480
262
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Jeon (KR 200366786 Y1)
PNG
media_image12.png
330
174
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
396
216
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN P JONES whose telephone number is (303)297-4309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/LOGAN P JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3762