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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In particular, the claim limitations “a range of 3 to 6 millimeters (mm), inclusive” and “a range of 6 to 12.5 mm, inclusive” are not supported by the specification, as the specification makes no mention of the numerical ranges (in mm or otherwise) in which the jaws of the apparatus open.
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 1-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view of Harbaugh US 0199539 A.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jones Figure 1, annotated
Regarding claim 1, Jones teaches a tile nipper (abstract) comprising: a first member (See Annotated Figure) comprising a first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure); a second member (See Annotated Figure) comprising a second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure), the second member (See Annotated Figure) rotatably coupled (77) to the first member (See Annotated Figure).
Jones does not teach an adjustment mechanism as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
518
429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Harbaugh Figures 1 and 2, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 1)
However, in a related tool, Harbaugh does teach an adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1) configured to adjust a distance between a first jaw (D) and a second jaw (C), wherein the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1) includes: a first component (See Annotated Figure 1); and a second component (E) coupled to the first component (See Annotated Figure 1), wherein the second component (E) is biased away (m) from a first (B) or second member (A), and wherein operation of the first component (See Annotated Figure 1) while forcing the second component (E) towards the first (B) or second member (A) adjusts the distance between the first (D) and second jaws (C). Harbaugh further teaches that this adjustment mechanism advantageously allows a user to easily and quickly adjust the tool to fit different sizes of pipes (col 2, ln 11-13). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, implement the adjustment mechanism of Harbaugh with the cutting edges of Jones to advantageously allow a user to quickly adjust a tool to cut different sizes of materials (col 2, ln 11-13). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the first member (B of Harbaugh) includes a recessed portion (e of Harbaugh), the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) includes a protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), and the protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) is disposed within the recessed portion (e of Harbaugh). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the recessed portion (e of Harbaugh) includes a first lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) and a second lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), wherein with the protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) disposed within the first lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a first distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones), and wherein with the protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) disposed within the second lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a second distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) that is different than the first distance (col 2, ln 11-13 of Harbaugh). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the first member (B of Harbaugh) includes a plurality of indents (i of Harbaugh), the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) includes a plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh), and wherein, prior to the distance between the first (See Annotated Figure of Jones) and second cutting edges (See Annotated Figure of Jones) being adjusted, the plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh) are disposed within a portion of the plurality of indents (i of Harbaugh).
PNG
media_image3.png
514
398
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Harbaugh Figures 1 and 2, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 2) Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the plurality of indents (i of Harbaugh) includes a first set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh) and a second set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), wherein with the plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh) disposed within the first set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a first distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones), and wherein with the plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh) disposed within the second set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones is a second distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) that is different than the first distance (col 2, ln 11-13 of Harbaugh).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches adjusting the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) includes rotating the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) about an axis (col 2, ln 13-15 of Harbaugh).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the first member (B of Harbaugh) comprises a first handle (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh) and the second member (A of Harbaugh) comprises a second handle (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), and wherein the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) is configured to adjust the distance between the first (See Annotated Figure of Jones) and second cutting edges (See Annotated Figure of Jones) while a distance between the first (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh) and second handles (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh) remains constant.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is removably coupled (para 3, ln 9-11 of Jones) to the first member (See Annotated Figure of Jones) and the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is removably coupled (para 3, ln 9-11 of Jones) to the second member (See Annotated Figure of Jones).
Claims 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view of Harbaugh US 0199539 A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janson US 6408725 B1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jones and Harbaugh teaches the nippers as claimed in claim 1. The combination of Jones and Harbaugh does not teach the first and second members being comprised of further members as claimed.
PNG
media_image4.png
465
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Janson Figure 1
PNG
media_image5.png
465
714
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Janson Figure 1, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 1)
However, in a related tool, Janson teaches a first member (See Annotated Figure 1) that includes a third member (18) rotatably coupled to a fourth member (20), and the second member (See Annotated Figure 1) includes a fifth member (16) rotatably coupled to a sixth member (22), wherein the fourth member (20) includes a first jaw (See Annotated Figure 1) and the sixth member (18) includes a second jaw (58). Janson further teaches that this orientation of members advantageously stops the motion of the third and fifth members (in this case handles being used by the user) whenever the fourth and sixth members are at their maximum separation angle (col 4, ln 47-50). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, been able to apply the modified first and second member of Janson to the adjustable nippers of the combination of Jones and Harbaugh to advantageously stop the motion of the handles when the adjustable nippers have reached their maximum opening distance (col 4, ln 47-50). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson teaches the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) rotatably couples the fourth member (20 of Janson) and the sixth member (22 of Janson). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson teaches the third member (18 of Janson) is rotatably coupled (70 of Janson) to the fifth member (16 of Janson). Regarding claim 12, the combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson teaches the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) is configured to adjust the distance between the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) and the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) between a first distance and a second distance (col 2, ln 17-20 of Harbaugh).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view of Harbaugh US 0199539 A and Janson US 6408725 B1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of YouTube Video “Max Pro Compound English explanation by Mandy Amrany” posted by Sea Bell Mosaics (herein Sea Bell Mosaics). Regarding claim 13, the combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson teaches the nippers as claimed in claim 12.
The combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson does not teach the numerical ranges of the distance between the cutting edges as claimed.
However, in a related tool, Sea Bell Mosaics teaches a tool with a total working range of 3-12mm (Screenshot 1, video description), where the first distance the tool can cut stops after cutting 6mm material (Screenshot 4) and requires the tool to be moved to a second opening distance (Screenshot 5) to cut larger 10mm material (Screenshot 16). Sea Bell Mosaics further teaches that this allows for the tool to advantageously cut both thicker materials (Screenshot 16) and thinner materials (Screenshots 17-18). A person skilled in the art, prior to the filing date of instant application, would have been able to combine the cutting ranges of Sea Bell Mosaics with the combination of Jones, Harbaugh, and Janson to advantageously allow users to cut a range of common materials. Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view Janson US 6408725 B1.
Regarding claim 14, Jones teaches a tile nipper (abstract) comprising: a first member (See Annotated Figure) comprising a first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure); and a second member (See Annotated Figure) comprising a second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure), the second member (See Annotated Figure) rotatably coupled (77) to the first member (See Annotated Figure).
Jones does not teach the first and second members being comprised of further members as claimed.
However, in a related tool, Janson teaches a first member (See Annotated Figure 1) which comprises a third member (18) rotatably coupled to a fourth member (20) at a first joint (40), the fourth member (20) including a first jaw (See Annotated Figure), a second member (See Annotated Figure 1) which comprises a fifth member (16) rotatably coupled to a sixth member (22) at a second joint (42), the sixth member (22) including a second jaw (68), the third member (18) is rotatably coupled to the fifth member (16) at a third joint (26), and the fourth member (20) is rotatably coupled to the sixth member (22) at a fourth joint (48). Janson further teaches that this orientation of members advantageously stops the motion of the third and fifth members (in this case handles being used by the user) whenever the fourth and sixth members are at their maximum separation angle (col 4, ln 47-50). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, been able to apply the modified first and second member of Janson to the nippers of Jones to advantageously stop the motion of the handles when the adjustable nippers have reached their maximum opening distance (col 4, ln 47-50). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image6.png
465
719
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Janson Figure 1, annotated (herein Annotated Figure 2)
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Jones and Janson teaches a plane (See Annotated Figure 2 of Janson) extends through the first (40 of Janson) and second joints (42 of Janson), and wherein the fourth joint (48 of Janson) is positioned between the plane (See Annotated Figure 2 of Janson) and the third joint (26 of Janson). Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view Janson US 6408725 B1 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Harbaugh US 0199539 A.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Jones and Janson teaches the nippers as claimed in claim 14.
The combination of Jones and Janson does not teach an adjustment mechanism as claimed.
However, in a related tool, Harbaugh does teach an adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1) configured to adjust a distance between a first jaw (D) and a second jaw (C), wherein the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1) includes: a first component (See Annotated Figure 1); and a second component (E) coupled to the first component (See Annotated Figure 1), wherein the second component (E) is biased away (m) from a first (B) or second member (A), and wherein adjusting the first component (See Annotated Figure 1) while forcing the second component (E) towards the first (B) or second member (A) adjusts the distance between the first (D) and second jaws (C). Harbaugh further teaches that this adjustment mechanism advantageously allows a user to easily and quickly adjust the tool to fit different sizes of pipes (col 2, ln 11-13). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, implement the adjustment mechanism of Harbaugh with the compound nipper of the combination of Jones and Janson to advantageously allow a user to quickly adjust a tool to cut different sizes of materials (col 2, ln 11-13). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh teaches the third joint (48 of Janson) includes the adjustment mechanism (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh). Regarding claim 17, the combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh teaches the first member (B of Harbaugh) includes a recessed portion (e of Harbaugh), the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) includes a protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) that is disposed within the recessed portion (e of Harbaugh), the recessed portion (e of Harbaugh) includes a first lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) and a second lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), with the protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) disposed within the first lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a first distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones), and with the protrusion (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) disposed within the second lobe (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a second distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) that is different than the first distance (col 2, ln 11-13 of Harbaugh). Regarding claim 18, the combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh teaches the first member (B of Harbaugh) includes a plurality of indents (i of Harbaugh), including a first set (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh) and a second set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), the first component (See Annotated Figure 1 of Harbaugh) includes a plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh), and wherein, with the plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh) disposed within the first set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a first distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones), and wherein with the plurality of secondary protrusions (x of Harbaugh) disposed within the second set of indents (See Annotated Figure 2 of Harbaugh), the first cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) is a second distance apart from the second cutting edge (See Annotated Figure of Jones) that is different than the first distance (col 2, ln 11-13 of Harbaugh).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones US 2008/0271324 A1 in view Janson US 6408725 B1 and Harbaugh US 0199539 A as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ishii JP 3241854 U. Regarding claim 19, the combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh teaches the nipper as claimed in claim 15.
The combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh does not teach the nipper comprising aluminum.
PNG
media_image7.png
319
397
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Ishii Figure 1
However, in a related tool, Ishii teaches the first (3) and second members (2) comprise aluminum (pg 1, ln 17-19, machine translation). Ishii teaches this advantageously reduces the weight of the tool (pg 1, ln 17-19, machine translation). A person skilled in the art would have been able to, prior to the filing date of instant application, been able to advantageously apply the aluminum body of Ishii to the combination of Jones, Janson, and Harbaugh to reduce the weight of the tool (pg 1, ln 17-19, machine translation). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions such that the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As related to the body being comprised of Aluminum Fryer US 2008/0271324 A1 is made of record. As related to the adjustment mechanism, Pease US 0252248 A and Wernimont US 1514488 A are made of record. Further NPL references, similar to the YouTube reference “Max Pro Compound English explanation by Mandy Amrany” posted by Sea Bell Mosaics, “Max Pro Compound by Galit Glazer” posted by Sea Bell Mosaics and “Seabell Mosaic Tool Review” posted by Treasury Road are made of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRANT D HAY whose telephone number is (571)272-9510. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-3:30pm 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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/G.D.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723