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 .
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
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 § 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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Young (US 12,482,442).
With regards to Claim 1, Young discloses an accessory to a Guitar Pick (the “Device”) that is separate from, but intended to be used in conjunction with a Guitar Pick (see Young column 1 lines 5-8 and column 2 lines 8-7; Young’s invention is directed to an accessory for holding a plectrum for strumming a guitar, thereby substantially being intended to use with a guitar pick), wherein such Device comprises: a sleeve (the “Sleeve”) with a hollow body [102] (see Young column 2 lines 62-65 and column 4 lines 53-60 and Figures 1 and 2; due to the channel [106] including slot [210] formed in the body [102] into which the guitar pick [104] is inserted, the body [102] is substantially a hollow body) containing an opening on one end of the Device (see Young column 2 lines 62-65 and column 4 lines 53-60 and Figures 1 and 2; the channel [106] with slot [210] substantially forms an opening at one end of the device), and such opening is large enough to accept the insertion of a Guitar Pick [104] through such opening (see Young column 2 lines 62-67 and column 3 lines 1-3 and Figure 1; the guitar pick [104] is inserted into the opening of channel [106], thereby the opening is substantially large enough to accept the insertion of guitar pick [104]), but small enough to prevent the Guitar Pick from falling out of the Device once it has been inserted into the opening (see Young column 4 lines 52-54 and column 5 lines 49-55; the opening of the channel is small enough that a tight friction fit within slot [210] such that the guitar pick [104] will substantially be prevented from falling out once inserted); wherein the sleeve [102] only covers the widest portion of the Guitar Pick, allowing the user of the Device to strike the open end (being the narrow end of the Guitar Pick that tapers down and almost comes to a point) of the inserted Guitar Pick against the strings of a stringed instrument (see Young column 5 lines 26-39 and Figures 1 and 5); and on the top portion [126] of the Sleeve exists an attached loop (the “Loop”) [110] that allows the user to insert an index finger into such Loop [110] for the purpose of being able to keep such user’s finger attached to the Device (see Young column 3 lines 4-12 and lines 20-22 and Figure 2); wherein the user’s finger is inserted into the Loop [110] in such a way as to allow the user’s thumb to easily be placed on the back of the Sleeve, allowing such user to hold the Device in the same manner that such user would typically hold a Guitar Pick (see Young column 3 lines 20-30).
With regards to Claim 5, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young further discloses the Loop [110] is permanently attached to the Sleeve (see Young column 6 lines 11-27; the loop [100] and sleeve including portion [102] may be formed monolithically for rigid attachment with one another, thereby substantially being permanently attached).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (US 12,482,442) in view of Lewis (GB 2573337; please see attached copy).
With regards to Claim 2, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young does not disclose either the bottom portion of the Sleeve, or the top portion of the Sleeve, or both the top and bottom portions of the Sleeve, have raised marks or lowered grooves on such portions of the surface of the Sleeve, for the purpose of enhancing the user’s grip on the Device.
Lewis teaches either the bottom portion [120B] of the Sleeve, or the top portion [120A] of the Sleeve, or both the top [120A] and bottom [120B] portions of the Sleeve, have raised marks [140] or lowered grooves on such portions of the surface of the Sleeve, for the purpose of enhancing the user’s grip on the Device (see Lewis page 11 lines 8-9 and Figure 2).
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 sleeve of Young such that either the bottom portion of the Sleeve, or the top portion of the Sleeve, or both the top and bottom portions of the Sleeve, have raised marks or lowered grooves on such portions of the surface of the Sleeve, for the purpose of enhancing the user’s grip on the Device, as taught by Lewis. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve a grip on the plectrum (see Lewis page 11 lines 8-9).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US 12,482,442).
With regards to Claim 3, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young does not explicitly disclose the top and bottom portions of the Sleeve both have a smooth surface. However, Young does show a substantially planar main surface on the Sleeve (see Young Figures 1-5), and the inclusion of the loop provides a sufficiently stable hold to the guitar pick (see Young column 6 lines 24-27, column 6 lines 42-45) to enhance a user’s grip on an otherwise smooth plectrum (see Young column 1 lines 23-31). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the alternate options of including smooth surfaces on the top and bottom portions of the sleeve or not including smooth surfaces on the top and bottom portions of the sleeve, and would understand how to form the sleeve with a smooth surface since such surfaces are known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to form the top and bottom portions of the Sleeve of Young to have a smooth surface to mimic a plectrum while still allowing a user to stably hold the plectrum due to inclusion of the Loop. 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 top portion and bottom portion of the Sleeve of Young to both have smooth surfaces. One would have been motivated to do so in order to mimic a plectrum having smooth surfaces while still allowing a user to stably hold the plectrum due to inclusion of the Loop (see Young column 6 lines 24-27, column 6 lines 42-45, and column 1 lines 23-31).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (US 12,482,442) in view of Atkin (US 6,797,871).
With regards to Claim 4, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young does not disclose the Loop can be temporarily attached or temporarily removed from the Sleeve.
Atkin teaches utilizing a temporary attachment/removal of the Loop [32e] (see Atkin column 7 lines 58-65 and Figure 17; hook and loop fastener [43e] substantially allows a user to temporarily attach and temporarily remove the Loop [32e]).
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 accessory of Young such that the Loop can be temporarily attached or temporarily removed from the Sleeve, as taught by Atkin. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the orientation of the pick held by the device to be adjusted relative the loop (see Atkin column 4 lines 41-54).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (US 12,482,442) in view of Spivey et al. (US 2017/0053627).
With regards to Claim 6, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young does not explicitly disclose the Loop is adjustable.
Spivey et al. teaches the Loop is adjustable (see Spivey et al. paragraphs 27 and 30 and Figures 1, 6, and 7).
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 Loop of Young to be adjustable as taught by Spivey et al. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the Device to fit various size fingers (see Spivey et al. paragraph 30).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yong (US 12,482,442) in view of Diaz (US 2015/0255050).
With regards to Claim 7, Young discloses the accessory as discussed above with regards to Claim 1.
Young does not disclose the Loop is not adjustable.
Diaz teaches the Loop [20] is not adjustable (see Diaz paragraph 33 and Figure 3; the Loop [20] may be made of a material that does not allow adjusting to a different finger size but rather is designed for one specific size, thereby substantially being not adjustable).
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 Loop of Young to be not adjustable, as taught by Diaz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to configure the Loop to fit one specific finger size (see Diaz paragraph 33).
Examiner Note
The following resources may be found beneficial by the applicant, and are provided below to ensure the applicant has knowledge of such resources provided by the USPTO:
Inventors Assistance Center: https://www.uspto.gov/ learning-and-resources/support-centers/inventors-assistance-center-iac or call Toll-Free: 800-786-9199, Local: 571-272-1000, TTY/TDD 800-877-8339.
Patent Pro Bono Program: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-bono/patent-pro-bono-program
Responding to Office Actions: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/maintain/responding-office-actions
Sample Amendment: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/preognotice/formatrevamdtprac.pdf
Reference to Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Caccia (US 2017/0221459), which discloses at least an accessory comprising a device for holding a guitar pick including a sleeve and a loop for wearing on a user’s finger and which can adjust to different finger sizes, Swartz (US 2010/0180747), which discloses at least an accessory comprising a device for holding a guitar pick including a sleeve and a loop for wearing on a user’s finger, Pirozzi (US 12,437,734), which discloses at least a device including a sleeve for holding a plectrum having a hollow body with a slot therein for holding the plectrum.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875