DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1-8 and 13-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Regarding each of claims 1-8, claim 1 (including claim 3) recites the limitation, “generally circular brace member” (emphasis added), in several lines of the claims.
However, the term “generally”, as used above, renders the clam ambiguous since it unclear whether it is referring to a circular brace member or a non-circular brace member.
(b) Claim 2 recites the term, “the each tooth”, in lines 2 and 3 of the claim. However, it is not clear whether the claim—per the term above—is referring to a particular tooth or each of the teeth (e.g., appropriate amendment --
(c) Each of claims 6 and 13 recites the limitation, “a shaft collar disposed at a substantially mid-section of the third horizontal member” (emphasis added).
However, the term “substantially”, as used above, renders each of the claims ambiguous since it introduces uncertainty. For instance, it is not clear whether the claim is referring to the actual mid-section of the horizontal member, or a section away (or how far away) from the actual mid-section of the horizontal member.
Note that given their direct or indirect dependency on claim 13, each of claims 14 and 15 is also subjected to the same discrepancy pointed out per claim 13.
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 of this title, 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 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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the one or more citations (paragraphs or columns) presented in this office action regarding the teaching of a cited reference(s) are exemplary only. Accordingly, such citation(s) are not intended to limit/restrict the teaching of the reference(s) to the cited portion(s) only. Applicant is required to evaluate the entire disclosure of each reference; such as additional portions that teach or suggest the claimed limitations.
● Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oetiker 7,093,326 in view of Wachter 2002/0171244 and in view of Helms 2023/0064379.
Note that FIG 1 of Oetiker is reproduced below, as FIG 1A; and furthermore, additional labels (e.g., letters) have been added in order to indicate parts of the claimed limitations that Oetiker is teaching:
Regarding claim 1, Oetiker teaches the following claimed limitations: a securing apparatus for securing [an object] to a workstation, the securing apparatus comprising: a generally circular brace member configured to secure the object to the workstation (see FIG 1A above: e.g., the clamp corresponds to the securing apparatus, which is already a generally circular brace member), the generally circular brace member comprising: a first section extending along a [first] length of a circumference of the generally circular brace member, wherein the first section comprises a plurality of teeth, wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth is oriented for slotting into a slot in a second section of the generally circular brace member (see FIG 1A: e.g., the clamp is construed as comprising at least two sections; namely, (a) a first section that extends from the junction labeled “A” to the end point labeled “B”; and this section already comprises a plurality of teeth, labeled as “13”; and (b) a second section that extends from label “A” to label “C”; and this section has at least one slot, labeled “14”. In this regard, the first section above is extending a first length of the circumference of the circular clamp, which is the circular brace member); the second section comprising a first end and a second end, wherein the second section extends along [second] length of the circumference of the generally circular brace member, and wherein the slot is disposed at the second end of the second section (FIG 1A, label “A”, “C” and “14”: e.g., as already pointed out above, the second section extends from label “A” to label “C”; and accordingly, the second section already comprises two ends: (i) a first end, which is portion of the second section that is close to label “A”, and (ii) a second end, which is portion of the second section that is close to label “C”; and furthermore, the at least one slot is already disposed at the second end. In this regard, the above second section is already extending along a second length of the circumference of the clamp, which is again the circular brae member); and wherein the generally circular brace member is configured to be tightly wrapped around [part of the object], and one of the plurality of teeth most proximal to the slot is slotted into the slot to secure the [object] to the generally circular brace member (see FIG 1A, labels “13” and “14”: e.g., the clamp, which is the circular brace member, is already configured to be tightly wrapped around part of the object; such as, a cylindrical part of the object; and wherein at least one of the teeth, such as the one proximal to the at least one slot, is inserted into the at least one slot; and thereby, the clamp secures the object).
Although Oetiker does not describe that the circular brace member above is intended to be used for securing a manikin—i.e., a cosmetology training manikin, such intended use or purpose of the apparatus does not necessarily negate the teaching of Oetiker discussed above. This is because the claim is defining the circular brace member, which is itself a form of clamp, merely in terms of its structural features, but not necessarily in terms of the structural features of the manikin.
Oetiker does not expressly describe that the first length is a quarter length and the second length is three quarters length of the generally circular brace member.
However, the above is directed to a dimensional parameter, which a person skilled in the art routinely selects when making different types of clamps; such as, one or more clamps utilized for securing different objects, etc.
Accordingly, given the above routine skill in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Oetiker’s apparatus; for example, by selecting a desired length to each of the first section (i.e., the part extending from label “A” to label “B”) and the second section (i.e., the part extending from label “A” to label “C”); such as, making the first section to be just half the length—or one quarter the length—of the circumference of the clamp, while the second section takes the remaining length of the circumference (i.e., the second section would be half the length—or three quarters the length—of the circumference); so that the user would able to form a clamp that complies with one’s style and/or length preferences, etc.
Oetiker does not teach: the first end of the second section is hingedly attached to a second end of the first section; and a rib is disposed on an inner perimeter of the generally circular brace member, the rib extends from a first end of the first section and terminates proximal to the second end of the second section behind the slot.
However, Wachter discloses a clamp (see FIG 1, label “2”); wherein the clamp comprises at least one hinge (FIG 1, label “16”) that rotatably attaches a first portion of the clamp to a second portion of the clamp; and the clamp further comprises at least one rib—which is in the form of a spike strip—that is disposed on an inner perimeter of the clamp; and each spike strip extends from one part of the clamp to another part of the clamp (see FIG 1, label “9”).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, 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 invention of Oetiker in view of Wachter; for example, by incorporating, at the junction section (see FIG 1A, the junction at label “A”), at least one hinge for rotatably attaching the first section (the part extending from label “A” to label “B”) with the second section (the part extending from label “A” to label “C”); and furthermore, at least one spike strip (i.e., rib) is disposed on an inner perimeter of at least one of the sections; so that, besides making the clamp very flexible—via its hinge connection—to be easily wrapped around the object being secured, the spike strip above enhances the gripping strength of the clamp; so that, the object’s potential to slip from the clamp’s grip is minimized.
Oetiker does not teach that the generally circular brace member is configured to be secured to the workstation.
However, Helms discloses a device, which is essentially a form of clamp (see FIG 1 and FIG 3), that one uses for securing an object; and the clamp comprises structural features, including one or more frames (FIG 1, label “114”) and a base (FIG 1, label “110”); so that the clamp can be secured to a platform—such as, a table ([0028]).
Accordingly, given the above teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Oetiker in view of Helms; for example, by incorporating one or more: frames, a base member, and also one or more common fasteners (e.g., one or more bolts and/or screws, etc.); so that, the clamp can be securely attached to a desired structure; and therefore, such arrangement further improves the overall stability of the object being secured via the clamp.
Note also that regarding a claim directed to an apparatus, the intended use of the apparatus does not distinguish the claim from a prior art reference(s) that taches the claimed structural features of the apparatus; see MPEP 2114 (II) (emphasis added),
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected).
Oetiker in view of Wachter and in view of Helms teaches the claimed limitations as discussed above per claim 1. Oetiker further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, a cross-section of the each tooth of the plurality of teeth is of an obtuse triangle, wherein a longer side of the each tooth slopes gradually upwards from the first end of the first section towards the second end of the first section (FIG 1A, label “13: e.g., each hook, which is a tooth, has a slanted structure comprising a first end that is flushed with the upper surface of the clamp, and a second end the is raised, at an angle less than 900, above the surface of the clamp; and wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth is positioned on the first section of the clamp, the part extending from label “A” to label “B”. Thus, per the arrangement above, the cross-section of each tooth of the plurality of teeth is of an obtuse triangle; and furthermore, the longer side of each tooth slopes gradually upwards from the first end of the first section towards the second end of the first section).
Prior Art
5. Although the prior art teaches various attachment mechanisms, including various types of clamps, for securing an object—such as the head of a manikin—to a particular structure (e.g., US 2013/0022395, US 2015/0118654, US 2009/0218376, US 5,054,729, US 6,109,921, etc.), none of the references—alone or in combination—suggests the specific structural features recited per each of claims 3-15 (also see the obviousness analysis discussed per claims 1 and 2 above in order to assess the state of the prior art regarding the current claims).
Allowable Subject Matter
(a) Considering each claim as a whole, claims 3-8 and 13-15 contain allowable subject matter since the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations recited per each of the above claims. However, the deficiencies pointed out under section §112(b) are required to be corrected.
(b) Considering each of claims 9-12 as a whole, each of these claims is allowed since the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations recited per each of these claims. Accordingly, Applicant may present the allowed claims separately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715