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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The use of legal phraseology, specifically the term “means” in line 5;
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 7 “pointed down in relation to the intended portion of the handle” should be “pointed down in relation to [[the]] an intended position of the handle
In claims 2-4, line 1 “A tool as in claim” should be ““[[A]] The tool as in claim”
In claim 3, line 2 “the end of the handle opposite” should be “[[the]] an end of the handle opposite”
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Finnegan (US Patent No. 3,758,945).
Regarding claim 1, Finnegan discloses: a tool (Figures 2-5 element 22 and see also col. 3, ll. 54-62) to assist a user in removing hair from a bar of soap (Applicant is reminded, 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 (See MPEP 2114 (II)), the tool comprising:
a handle (elements 34/40),
a row of tines (elements 26) attached to the handle (see figures 2-4), wherein the row of tines are:
located at one end of the handle (see figures 3-4 annotated below Detail A) ;
oriented perpendicular to the handle (see figure 3 annotated below showing the row of tines (element 26) oriented perpendicular (left to right) with the handle (elements 34/40));
pointed down in relation to the intended position of the handle when being held (see figure 2 showing row of tines (element 26) gradually pointed down in relation to the intended position of the handle (elements 34/40) when being held by the user); and,
oriented at an obtuse angle to the handle in relation to the intended position of the handle when being held (see “Abstract”, see figure 4, and see also col. 4, ll. 10-16 where the prior art discloses element 26 (row of tines) having a plane that is at an “obtuse angle” to the axis of element 34 (handle) and further disclosing the obtuse angle of 160°).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
980
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Finnegan discloses: [[a]] the tool as in claim 1, wherein the handle is constructed out of a rigid material (see col. 4, ll. 5-6 where the prior art discloses element 34 (portion of handle) being made of “metal stock” which metal well known in the art to be a rigid material).
Regarding claim 4, Finnegan discloses: [[a]] the tool as in claim 2, wherein the handle is equipped with a thumb grip (see figure 2 annotated below Detail A).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnegan (US Patent No. 3,758,945) in view of Inman (US Patent No. 2,845,642).
Regarding claim 3, Finnegan discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 1-2, but appears to be silent wherein the end of the handle opposite the row of tines is in the shape of a curl.
Inman is also concern in providing a tool (Figures 1-5 and see also col. 1, ll. 44-46) comprising a handle (element 1), a row of wires (element 11) attached to the handle, and wherein the end of the handle opposite the row is in the shape of a curl (see figure 1 and see col. 1, ll. 44-45 where the prior art discloses the handle having one end thereof “curled”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Finnegan to incorporate the teachings of Inman to provide wherein the end of the handle opposite the row is in the shape of a curl. The resultant combination would have the curl shape handle end of Inman now on the end of the handle opposite the row of tines of Finnegan. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that providing a curled shape handle would necessarily proved an eye thereby providing an opening for hanging the device upon a hook or nail, as disclosed by Inman (see col. 1, ll. 44-47), thus allowing the user to appropriately store the tool.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723