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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner discussed a restriction between 2 species. Species 1 (claims 1-23, 26-27) directed to an apparatus that stores new and used wax guards, and Species 2 (claims 24-25) directed to a process of engaging a used wax guard in a first recess and mounting a new replacement wax guard into the tip of the hearing aid. Applicant elected Species 1 without traverse. Claims 24-25 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 2-3, 15-23 and 27 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.
The term “easy-to-read” in claims 3, 15 and 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easy-to-read” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what makes something easy-to-read, and therefore renders the limitation indefinite.
Claims 2, 15-23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structure of the gripping surface that yields the limitation “ergonomic gripping surface” in claims 2, 15 and 27.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802).
Regarding claim 1, Dennis teach An apparatus, comprising: a housing having at least one first recess configured to receive and store (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0022, plurality of receptacles, 230-234) a used wax guard for a hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, “cerumen guards”) and at least one second recess containing a new replacement wax guard for the hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, It would have been obvious to implement multiple receptacles tailored to fit cerumen guards, whether it be used or new), the first recess and the second recess having a diameter from 5 mm-10 mm (Dennis ¶0022, “the inset 210 includes a plurality of receptacles, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 and so forth or boxes of various shapes and sizes formed therein. The receptacles can be positioned and shaped as desired in order to provide boxes of any suitable shapes and/or sizes,” It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the receptacle to be between 5mm-10mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See pertinent art Topholm ¶0120, “The ear wax guard 22 is manufactured of a resilient material, such as silicone rubber or a thermoplastic elastomer, typically with an outer diameter of 2.25-1.5 mm and an inner diameter of the bore 24 of about 1 mm,” the size of a typical ear-wax guard will be in the 5mm-10mm receptacle. See also pertinent art Liu2 figure 3 and ¶0038, shows the diameter of a receptacle r1 can be 0.5mm – 8mm), however does not explicitly teach the first recess having a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard.
Stanton teaches a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard (Stanton figures 1-2 and Col 4 lines 17-20, “The distal end 32 of the housing 14 terminates in a removable wax guard 46. The wax guard 46 can be unscrewed from the distal end 32 or can be unsnapped therefrom”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known fastening technique of Stanton to improve the kit container receptacles of Dennis to achieve the predictable result of a more secure fit of components in the kit container.
Regarding claim 8, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has dimensions 30-55 mm height×35-60 mm length×5-10 mm width, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the dimensions of the housing to achieve the desired size of a device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Dennis in view of Stanton teaches wherein the housing has at least one brush cavity for storing at least one removable cleaning brush (Dennis Claim 10, “maintenance accessory includes a cleaning pick and brush”).
Regarding claim 26, Dennis teaches A manufacturing processing, comprising: in an apparatus comprising a housing having at least one first recess configured to receive and store (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0022, plurality of receptacles, 230-234) a used wax guard for a hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, “cerumen guards”) and at least one second recess configured to store a new replacement wax guard for the hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, It would have been obvious to implement multiple receptacles tailored to fit cerumen guards, whether it be used or new), the first recess and the second recess having a diameter from 5 mm-10 mm (Dennis ¶0022, “the inset 210 includes a plurality of receptacles, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 and so forth or boxes of various shapes and sizes formed therein. The receptacles can be positioned and shaped as desired in order to provide boxes of any suitable shapes and/or sizes,” It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the receptacle to be between 5mm-10mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See pertinent art Topholm ¶0120, “The ear wax guard 22 is manufactured of a resilient material, such as silicone rubber or a thermoplastic elastomer, typically with an outer diameter of 2.25-1.5 mm and an inner diameter of the bore 24 of about 1 mm,” the size of a typical ear-wax guard will be in the 5mm-10mm receptacle. See also pertinent art Liu2 figure 3 and ¶0038, shows the diameter of a receptacle r1 can be 0.5mm – 8mm), the step of loading the new replacement wax guard into the second recess (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0022, plurality of receptacles, 230-234, it would be obvious for a user to place a new wax guard in one of the receptacles meant for cerumen guards), however does not explicitly teach the first recess having a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard.
Stanton teaches the first recess having a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard (Stanton figures 1-2 and Col 4 lines 17-20, “The distal end 32 of the housing 14 terminates in a removable wax guard 46. The wax guard 46 can be unscrewed from the distal end 32 or can be unsnapped therefrom”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known fastening technique of Stanton to improve the kit container receptacles of Dennis to achieve the predictable result of a more secure fit of components in the kit container.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435).
Regarding claim 2, Dennis in view of Stanton does not teach wherein the housing has an ergonomic gripping surface.
Skov teaching wherein the housing has an ergonomic gripping surface (Skov figure 7, and ¶0056, “an ergonomically preferred handle 80 includes a grip portion 146”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Skov to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a case that is easier to carry.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660).
Regarding claim 3, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has an easy-to-read first label identifying the first recess, and an easy-to-read second label identifying the second recess.
Liu teaches wherein the housing has an easy-to-read first label identifying the first recess, and an easy-to-read second label identifying the second recess (Liu figure 2, label groove 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Liu to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a more organized storage unit.
Regarding claim 4, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Liu teaches wherein the housing has a rectilinear shape, the first recess on a first side, the second recess on a second side (Dennis figure 2 and Liu figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 6, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Liu teaches wherein the housing has at least one air vent hole in communication with the first recess (Liu figure 11, ¶0075, ventilation hole 320).
Regarding claim 7, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has 6-12 first recesses, and has 6-12 second recesses. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the number of recess to 6-12 first recess and 6-12 second recess to achieve more storage space, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1.
Link to Amazon1: (<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07VZNMNH9/ref=vp_d_pbhr_TIER3_sessmp_hr_B07S6LLDBG_pd?_encoding=UTF8&pf_rd_p=13f10d54-4593-48d2-8f72-cbd5f353d805&pf_rd_r=2W2JFEPP7ZCXKV2S83K6&pd_rd_wg=x2VbL&pd_rd_i=B07VZNMNH9&pd_rd_w=jfIvj&content-id=amzn1.sym.13f10d54-4593-48d2-8f72-cbd5f353d805&pd_rd_r=2e1bb9b4-5bb7-44db-892c-39c12e16355a&th=1>).
Regarding claim 5, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a unitary body and has no moving parts.
Amazon1 teaches wherein the housing has a unitary body and has no moving parts (See amazon page photos).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Amazon1 to modify the case of Dennis in view of Stanton to be one piece without a lid to achieve the predictable result of easier access to the stored components.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Whisker (US 2012/0005851).
Regarding claim 10, Dennis in view of Stanton teaches wherein the housing has at least one tool cavity for storing at least one removable cleaning tool, wherein the removable cleaning tool is a small metal loop or cleaning pick (Dennis Claim 10), however does not explicitly teach the cleaning pick is rubber.
Whisker teaches a rubber cleaning pick (Whisker ¶0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Whisker to improve the known Apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a better grip for the cleaning pick.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Winnard (US 6073766).
Regarding claim 11, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has an embedded magnet.
Winnard teaches wherein the housing has an embedded magnet (Winnard Col 5 lines 39-50, “Magnetic segment 614 is constructed from a flexible strip material formed from non-metallic binding material with magnetic material embedded therein”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Winnard to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of securing tools in place.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Jia (CN 203234188).
Regarding claim 12, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the fastener is a tensioning fastener.
Jia teaches wherein the fastener is a tensioning fastener (Jia figure 2, ¶0017, “tensioning spring 11, snap fastener 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Jia to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a more secure way to store components.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Muhr (AT409077).
Regarding claim 13, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the fastener is a torqueing fastener.
Muhr teaches wherein the fastener is a torqueing fastener (Muhr figure 2 and ¶0049, screw bolt 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Muhr to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a more secure way to store components.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Slocum (US 5888114).
Regarding claim 14, Dennis in view of Stanton does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a frangible portion, the frangible portion defined by at least one weakened line to remove the frangible portion from a remainder portion of the housing.
Slocum teaches wherein the housing has a frangible portion, the frangible portion defined by at least one weakened line to remove the frangible portion from a remainder portion of the housing (Slocum figures 1-6, Col 6 lines 7-19, LEGO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Slocum to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of reconfiguring the storing arrangements of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 15-18 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1.
Regarding claim 15, Dennis teaches An apparatus, comprising: a housing having at least one first recess configured to receive and store (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0022, plurality of receptacles, 230-234) a used wax guard for a hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, “cerumen guards”) and at least one second recess containing a new replacement wax guard for the hearing aid (Dennis figure 2 and ¶0024 and ¶0037, It would have been obvious to implement multiple receptacles tailored to fit cerumen guards, whether it be used or new), the first recess and the second recess having a diameter from 5 mm-10 mm (Dennis ¶0022, “the inset 210 includes a plurality of receptacles, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 and so forth or boxes of various shapes and sizes formed therein. The receptacles can be positioned and shaped as desired in order to provide boxes of any suitable shapes and/or sizes,” It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the receptacle to be between 5mm-10mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See pertinent art Topholm ¶0120, “The ear wax guard 22 is manufactured of a resilient material, such as silicone rubber or a thermoplastic elastomer, typically with an outer diameter of 2.25-1.5 mm and an inner diameter of the bore 24 of about 1 mm,” the size of a typical ear-wax guard will be in the 5mm-10mm receptacle. See also pertinent art Liu figure 3 and ¶0038, shows the diameter of a receptacle r1 can be 0.5mm – 8mm), wherein the housing has a rectilinear shape, the first recess on a first side, the second recess on a second side (Dennis figure 2 and Liu figures 1-3), however does explicitly teach the first recess having a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard; wherein the housing has an ergonomic gripping surface; wherein the housing has an easy-to-read first label identifying the first recess, and an easy-to-read second label identifying the second recess; wherein the housing has a unitary body and has no moving parts; wherein the housing has at least one air vent hole in communication with the first recess.
Stanton teaches a fastener configured to receive and attach to the used wax guard (Stanton figures 1-2 and Col 4 lines 17-20, “The distal end 32 of the housing 14 terminates in a removable wax guard 46. The wax guard 46 can be unscrewed from the distal end 32 or can be unsnapped therefrom”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known fastening technique of Stanton to improve the kit container receptacles of Dennis to achieve the predictable result of a more secure fit of components in the kit container.
Skov teaches wherein the housing has an ergonomic gripping surface (Skov figure 7, and ¶0056, “an ergonomically preferred handle 80 includes a grip portion 146”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Skov to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton to achieve the predictable result of a case that is easier to carry.
Liu teaches ; wherein the housing has an easy-to-read first label identifying the first recess, and an easy-to-read second label identifying the second recess (Liu figure 2, label groove 22), wherein the housing has at least one air vent hole in communication with the first recess (Liu figure 11, ¶0075, ventilation hole 320).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Liu to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov to achieve the predictable result of a more organized storage unit.
Amazon1 teaches wherein the housing has a unitary body and has no moving parts (See amazon page photos).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Amazon1 to modify the case of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu to be one piece without a lid to achieve the predictable result of easier access to the stored components.
Regarding claim 16, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has 6-12 first recesses, and has 6-12 second recesses. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the number of recess to 6-12 first recess and 6-12 second recess to achieve more storage space, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working part of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 17, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has dimensions 30-55 mm height×35-60 mm length×5-10 mm width, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the dimensions of the housing to achieve the desired size of a device, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 teaches wherein the housing has at least one brush cavity for storing at least one removable cleaning brush (Dennis Claim 10, “maintenance accessory includes a cleaning pick and brush”).
Regarding claim 27, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 teaches wherein the housing has an ergonomic gripping surface (Skov figure 7, and ¶0056, “an ergonomically preferred handle 80 includes a grip portion 146”), wherein the housing has an easy-to-read first label identifying the first recess, and an easy-to-read second label identifying the second recess (Liu figure 2, label groove 22), wherein the housing has a rectilinear shape, the first recess on a first side, the second recess on a second side (Dennis figure 2 and Liu figures 1-3), wherein the housing has a unitary body and has no moving parts (See Amazon1, amazon page photos), and wherein the housing has at least one air vent hole in communication with the first recess (Liu figure 11, ¶0075, ventilation hole 320).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1 in further view of Whisker (US 2012/0005851).
Regarding claim 19, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 teaches wherein the housing has at least one tool cavity for storing at least one removable cleaning tool, wherein the removable cleaning tool is a small metal loop or cleaning pick (Dennis Claim 10), however does not explicitly teach the cleaning pick is rubber.
Whisker teaches a rubber cleaning pick (Whisker ¶0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Whisker to improve the known Apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 to achieve the predictable result of a better grip for the cleaning pick.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1 in further view of Winnard (US 6073766).
Regarding claim 20, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has an embedded magnet.
Winnard teaches wherein the housing has an embedded magnet (Winnard Col 5 lines 39-50, “Magnetic segment 614 is constructed from a flexible strip material formed from non-metallic binding material with magnetic material embedded therein”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Winnard to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 to achieve the predictable result of securing tools in place.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1 in further view of Jia (CN 203234188).
Regarding claim 21, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the fastener is a tensioning fastener.
Jia teaches wherein the fastener is a tensioning fastener (Jia figure 2, ¶0017, “tensioning spring 11, snap fastener 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Jia to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 to achieve the predictable result of a more secure way to store components.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1 in further view of Muhr (AT409077).
Regarding claim 22, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the fastener is a torqueing fastener.
Muhr teaches wherein the fastener is a torqueing fastener (Muhr figure 2 and ¶0049, screw bolt 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Muhr to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 to achieve the predictable result of a more secure way to store components.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dennis (US 2002/0126864) in view of Stanton (US 5185802) in further view of Skov (US 2004/0026435) in further view of Liu (CN 211253660) in further view of Amazon Basic Desk Drawer Organizer herein after as Amazon1 in further view of Slocum (US 5888114).
Regarding claim 23, Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 does not explicitly teach wherein the housing has a frangible portion, the frangible portion defined by at least one weakened line to remove the frangible portion from a remainder portion of the housing.
Slocum teaches wherein the housing has a frangible portion, the frangible portion defined by at least one weakened line to remove the frangible portion from a remainder portion of the housing (Slocum figures 1-6, Col 6 lines 7-19, LEGO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Slocum to improve the known apparatus of Dennis in view of Stanton in further view of Skov in further view of Liu in further view of Amazon1 to achieve the predictable result of reconfiguring the storing arrangements of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Topholm (US 2002/0136420), Liu2 (CN 105912109).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693