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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on French Application FR23/00252 dated 01/10/2023 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this French application on 02/01/2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5-6 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8, “allowing the bearing of the cap lifter” should read --allowing bearing of the cap lifter--.
Claims 5 and 6, “the diameter of the wire” should read --a diameter of the wire--.Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Altenbach (DE 647844 C).
Claim 1 recites a cap lifter of a knife that is used for receiving a capsule. More limiting the features and relationship between the capsule and the knife device mount to mere components associated with the intended use of the recited device. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)) and cases cited therein. See also MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Thus, the prior art only needs to teach the recited components of the device.Altenbach teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a knife comprising a handle with a longitudinal axis (axis L) and a blade rotatably (at pivot A) mounted at a first longitudinal end of the handle, between a position deployed outside the handle and in the alignment thereof (not shown), and a folded position in a space provided in the handle (shown below), the knife further comprising a cap lifter (cap lifter comprises the wire structure 12 and a part of the second end (bearing element) of the handle shown below), the cap lifter being placed at a second longitudinal end of the handle, the cap lifter comprising a wire structure (“U-shaped wire frame 12”) mounted to freely rotate about an axis (axis P) orthogonal to the longitudinal axis of the handle, the wire structure defining with the handle a closed contour delimiting a cap lifting aperture intended to receive a capsule (this is intended use of the wire structure; wire structure of Altenbach teaches all claimed limitations and therefore is capable of intended use of receiving a certain size and shape bottle capsule), and in that the cap lifter comprises a bearing element (bearing element is part of the second end of the handle where the wire structure rests on) allowing the bearing of the cap lifter on an upper part of the capsule (this is intended use of the device and an upper part of the bottle capsule can rest on bearing element of the handle of Altenbach, and the wire structure under the capsule for removal), said bearing element being formed by a bearing zone of the handle, and a hooking element (bottom part of U shaped wire structure) allowing the hooking of the cap lifter under the capsule, said hooking element being formed by a rectilinear transverse portion of the wire structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
780
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Altenbach teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the wire structure consists of a bent metal wire.
Regarding claim 4, Altenbach teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the wire structure is flat (see Fig. 4) and in that the wire is of circular section (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, device of Altenbach is capable of receiving a certain size and shape bottle cap to pry open.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altenbach in view of Hunkele (US 20110179581 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Figs. of Altenbach do not clearly show device having a corkscrew arranged inside a storage recess.
Hunkele teaches a knife comprising a handle with a longitudinal axis (L) and a blade (cutting blade 26) rotatably mounted at a first longitudinal end of the handle, between a position deployed outside the handle and in the alignment thereof (solid line), and a folded position in a space provided in the handle (ghost line), the knife further comprising a cap lifter (bottle opener 10), the cap lifter being placed at a second longitudinal end of the handle; a storage (generally elongated corkscrew cavity 14) recess in which a corkscrew (corkscrew 15) is arranged.
PNG
media_image2.png
464
843
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings of Hunkele in device of Altenbach with adding corkscrew inside a corkscrew storage of the handle to make the device capable of opening wine bottles.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altenbach.
Regarding claims 5-6, Altenbach is silent regarding size of the wire.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose wire size based on cap size and the prying force needed to remove a bottle cap. It is noted that there is an absence of criticality to the wire size and there is also an absence of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7 and 8 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.
Claims 2, 7 and 8 are allowed for further disclosing the bearing zone being inclined relative to the longitudinal axis of the handle; further disclosing structure of the wire structure and further disclosing the handle having the first and second ferrules.
The closest prior art to the claimed invention of claims 2, 7 and 8 is Altenbach. However Altenbach does not teach the claimed bearing zone, wire structure and ferrules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (KR 2122879 B1) teaches a bottle cap opener with a wire structure (12).
PNG
media_image3.png
879
791
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Gaskins (US 4409864 A) teaches a bottle cap opener with a wire structure (24, 28, 26).
PNG
media_image4.png
876
536
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is (571)270-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
MAHDI H. NEJAD
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MAHDI H NEJAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723