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 .
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 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishihara (US Patent 4,930,335).
With regards to claim 1, Ishihara discloses a dent puller, comprising:
a base (10) including at least two legs (36) movably mounted to the base, wherein the at least two legs support the base on a workpiece, as seen in at least Figure 2;
a vertical body (24) rotatably coupled to the base, as seen in at least Figure 1;
a pull shaft assembly (including rod 26) with a lifting sleeve (28) on a top end and a tab receiver (46) on a bottom end, a portion (26) of the pull shaft assembly housed by the vertical body (24) and the base (10) to provide for guided linear displacement of the pull shaft assembly relative to the vertical body, as seen in at least Figure 2; and
a handle (32) pivotally coupled to the vertical body, the handle including a lifting cam (22) including an arcuate surface, as seen in at least Figure 4, the lifting cam (22) in mechanical communication with the lifting sleeve (24), whereby when the handle is rotated with respect to the vertical body, the tab receiver of the pull shaft assembly is moved away from the workpiece by way of the lifting cam displacing the lifting sleeve, as seen in at least Figure 2.
With regards to claim 17, Ishihara discloses further comprising a foot (38) on each of the at least two legs (36), the foot including a flat surface (40) for supporting the dent puller on the workpiece.
With regards to claim 18, Ishihara discloses wherein the connection of the foot (38) to the leg (36) is closer to a first edge of the foot than it is to an opposite edge of the foot, as seen in Figure 3.
Claims 1-4, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meichtry (US 2004/0016282).
With regards to claim 1, Meichtry discloses a dent puller, comprising:
a base (162.1, 162.2, 16) including at least two legs (12.1, 12.2) movably mounted to the base, wherein the at least two legs support the base on a workpiece, as seen in at least Figure 2;
a vertical body (155) rotatably coupled to the base, as seen in at least Figure 1;
a pull shaft assembly (including rod 11) with a lifting sleeve (157) on a top end and a tab receiver (68) on a bottom end, a portion (11) of the pull shaft assembly housed by the vertical body (155) and the base to provide for guided linear displacement of the pull shaft assembly relative to the vertical body, as seen in at least Figure 1; and
a handle (163) pivotally coupled to the vertical body, the handle including a lifting cam (151.1, 151.2) including an arcuate surface (156), the lifting cam in mechanical communication with the lifting sleeve (157), whereby when the handle is rotated with respect to the vertical body, the tab receiver of the pull shaft assembly is moved away from the workpiece by way of the lifting cam displacing the lifting sleeve, as seen in at least Figure 2.
With regards to claim 2, Meichtry discloses wherein the at least two legs (12.1, 12.2) are adjustably positioned on the beam (16), the beam being secured to the base, as seen in at least Figure 1.
With regards to claim 3, Meichtry discloses wherein the beam 16 is fixed to the base and extends from the base on at least two sides of the base, as seen in at least Figure 1.
With regards to claim 4, Meichtry discloses wherein the beam is comprised to at least two beams (165.1, 165.2), each of the at least two beams being releasably secured to the base, as seen in Figure 2.
With regards to claim 17, Meichtry discloses further comprising a foot (52) on each of the at least two legs (12), the foot including a flat surface for supporting the dent puller on the workpiece, as seen in at least Figure 1
With regards to claim 19, Meichtry discloses at least two legs include a spherical portion (51) on a distal end.
With regards to claim 20, Meichtry discloses further comprising a foot (52) including a spherical cavity adapted to be received by the spherical portion of each of the at least two legs, as seen in at least Figure 3a, thereby providing three degrees of freedom of movement between each foot and leg, as described in at least paragraph 26.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Meichtry (US 2004/0016282).
Ishihara discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein each of the at least two legs include a spherical portion on a distal end and further comprising a foot including a spherical cavity adapted to be received by the spherical portion of each of the at least two legs, thereby providing three degrees of freedom of movement between each foot and leg. Meichtry is relied upon to teach a dent puller comprising at least two legs include a spherical portion (51) on a distal end and further comprising a foot (52) including a spherical cavity adapted to be received by the spherical portion of each of the at least two legs, as seen in at least Figure 3a, thereby providing three degrees of freedom of movement between each foot and leg, as described in at least paragraph 26. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ishihara’s leg and foot connection with Meichtry’s connection because simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results requiring only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara or Meichtry in view of Lin et al. (hereafter “Lin”)(US Patent 10,099,269).
Both Ishihara and Meichtry separately disclose the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the pull shaft assembly further comprises a compression spring positioned between the tab receiver and the base, thereby biasing the tab receiver away from the base. Lin is relied upon to teach a dent puller with a base (20) and a tap receiver (70) with a compression spring (60) positioned between the tab receiver and the base, thereby biasing the tab receiver away from the base, as seen in at least Figure 4. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute Ishihara or Meichtry tab recevier with Lin’s tab receiver with a spring because simple substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results requiring only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-12 and 14-16 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725