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 § 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 1-13 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-13: “a hook” is claimed multiple times throughout the claims. However, it is confusing throughout the claims whether the hook is attached to the housing or to the tape, as there are two hooks disclosed in the applicant’s specification and drawings (hooks 4 and 10).
Claim 2: it is unclear what is meant by “the hook and casing to snap the hook in.”
Claim 3: it is unclear what “the end of the tape measure” is. The tape measure is claimed as having three components (a hook, a housing case and a handle), but does not state what the end is.
Claim 4: the phrase “a regular tape measure would not or have a hard time doing so” is vague. Claim 4 also lacks antecedent basis for “the tape”.
Claim 5: the phrase “the hook is attached to when not in use” is vague.
Claim 6: the phrase “is compact in design” is relative and vague.
Claim 7: “the base” and “the measuring tape” lack antecedent basis. Additionally, “a reel’s handle” should be --a reel handle-- for clarity.
Claim 8: “the hook is attached to the housing case by precision shoulder screw and socket screw” is unclear. The term appears what is intended is “socket shoulder screw.”
Claim 9: “thumb screw twist” and “flange lockout” are unclear as these are not common terms. It is also unclear how the claimed components are arranged.
Claim 10: the components listed after “like” render the claim indefinite. Also, it is unclear what is meant by “the appraisal’s hook”.
Claim 11: the term “presents” renders the claim unclear.
Claim 12: “the housing assembly” (line 3), “the casing” (line 5), “the hook” (line 6), “the hook guard assembly” (line 8) and “the screws” (line 9) lack antecedent basis. The phrase “a non-zero distance” is unclear. This claim also states that the tape is “extending between the hook” but does not state where the other end of the tape is.
Claim 13: “the handle guard” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones (US Pat. No. 7,260,899).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses: A compact tape measure 10, comprising:
a hook 24B,
a housing case 12, 14, and
a handle 18.
Regarding claim 2, the casing of Jones “snap(s) the hook in” when the tape is retracted in the housing.
Regarding claim 3, the hook of Jones is shown at the end of the tape measure at 24.
Regarding claim 4, the tape of Jones has side edges that are longer than the front and rear edges.
Regarding claim 5, the hook end 24B of Jones is a means on the hook to attach the hook to the (mouth) of the casing when not in use.
Regarding claim 6, the tape measure 10 of Jones can be considered compact, since it is meant to be hand-held.
Regarding claim 7, Jones discloses: A compact tape measure 10, comprising:
a hook 24B at the base of the measuring tape 24;
a casing house 12, 14, and
a reel’s handle 38.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Steele et al. (US Pat. No. 8,806,770).
Regarding claim 12, Steele et al. discloses: A compact tape measure 10 comprising:
a housing 18 arranged to enclose an internal cavity 62, the housing defining a front wall 106;
a handle 74 formed on the housing assembly 18 and spaced a non-zero distance from the front wall 106;
a measuring tape 14 at least partially disposed within the internal cavity of the casing (housing) 18 and extending between the hook 26, 102, the measuring tape rotatably coupled to the housing (via spool 44); and
a hook assembly (FIG 3) positioned adjacent the front wall, the hook assembly cooperating with screws (bosses) 134 to define a space there between, the measuring tape passing through the space outside of the housing to facilitate the control of the retraction and extension of the measuring tape through contact within the space.
Regarding claim 13, the hook guard assembly (called handle guard assembly in the claim) will prevent retraction of the hook member into the space as claimed.
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.
Claims 7- 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele et al. (US Pat. No. 8,806,770) in view of Huang (US Pat. No. 7,568,296).
Regarding claim 7, Steele et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed where: 102 is a hook attached to a base of a measuring tape housing 18; 26 is a hook attached to the base of a measuring tape 14; and 18 is a casing house. However, Steele et al. does not disclose the reel handle as claimed. Huang discloses a reel handle 34 that may be used for the purpose of manually rewinding a measuring tape onto a reel. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use a reel handle as taught by Huang for the purpose of rewinding the tape of Steele et al. manually.
Regarding claim 8, the attaching means for the hook as claimed are obvious and well-known functional equivalents of the attaching means of Steele et al. shown in FIGS 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 9, the tape handle of Huang appears to include the features as claimed in FIG 3.
Regarding claim 10, the hook cover and hook attachments are old and well-known accessories used for the purpose of holding a tape blade in place.
Regarding claim 11, Steele et al. further discloses a left cover 50, a right cover 54. The further elements of claim 11 are common old and well-known components used in the assembly of tape measures and would be obvious to use with the tape measure of Steele et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to G. BRADLEY BENNETT whose telephone number is 571.272.2237. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571.272.2375. 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.
/GEORGE B BENNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
gbb
5 FEB 2026