DETAILED ACTIONS
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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 14, 2023 and January 10, 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on October 10, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the tip” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be examined a “a tip”.
Claims 2-18 are rejected as dependents of rejected claim 1.
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashi (Japanese Patent No: JP 2521363 Y2).
In reference to claim 1, Hashi discloses an eraser case comprising: a cylindrical container (see annotated Figure 1) in which an eraser (7) with a cylindrical hole (10) is stored to be extendable and retractable through an opening at a tip (see annotated Figure 1); a twist-up base (3) that is slidable in an axial direction inside the cylindrical container and to which an end part of an eraser stored in the cylindrical container is fixed (Page 5, lines 9-12); and a screw shaft body (2) that can push the twist-up base out by being inserted into and threadedly engaged.
While Hashi does not disclose that the screw shaft body is threadedly engaged with a screw hole piercing through the twist-up base, the screw shaft body is threadedly engaged on the inner surface of the eraser holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14), through the twist-up base to convert an axial rotational motion into an axial motion of the twist-up base (Page 5, lines 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
Hashi continues to disclose the eraser case wherein the twist-up base comprises a convex locking portion (see annotated Figure 2) protruding toward the eraser, and the convex locking portion (see annotated Figure 2) fixes the eraser (7) to the twist-up base (3) by being locked to a concave locking portion provided on an inner wall surface (9) of the cylindrical hole of the eraser.
While Hashi does not expressly disclose a concave and convex locking portion, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret the locking groove (15) and stopper (18) as the locking portion and the claimed concave and convex shape as annotated on Figure 2 as it serves the same function of preventing the eraser from continuing to protrude outside of the eraser case (Page 5, lines 2-5).
PNG
media_image1.png
666
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 2, Hashi discloses a cylindrical container with an inner wall surface (6), an outer circumferential surface (9) and a twist up base (3).
However, Hashi does not disclose that each of an inner wall surface of the cylindrical container and an outer circumferential surface of the twist-up base has an axial cross-sectional shape other than a perfect circle. The specification notes that the cross-sectional shape aspect is to prevent the eraser from performing an axial rotational motion along with the screw shaft body inside the cylindrical container to interfere with the axial motion of the eraser (Applicant’s specification paragraph 8).
While Hashi only discloses a cylindrical shape, Hashi discloses a flat portion (17, Figure 3) on the inner surface of the outer tube that would prevent the eraser from rotating with the outer tube (Page 4, lines 28-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi and change the cross-sectional shape of the twist up base since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part B).
PNG
media_image2.png
255
318
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 3, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a locking mechanism (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
However, Hashi does not expressly state a convex locking portion has a shape of a snap fit joint. The examiner notes that the shape of a snap fit joint is interpreted as a protrusion that engages into a groove. Hashi’s Figure 2 shows a protrusion annotated as the concave locking portion and discloses that the stopper (18), where the protrusion comes from, engages with a groove (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret the locking groove (15), stopper (18) and stopper engagement groove (12) and the claimed convex shape as annotated on Figure 2 as the locking portion since it serves the same function of preventing the eraser from continuing to protrude outside of the eraser case (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
In reference to claim 4, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a locking mechanism (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
However, Hashi does not expressly state a convex locking portion has a shape of a snap fit joint. The examiner notes that the shape of a snap fit joint is interpreted as a protrusion that engages into a groove. Hashi’s Figure 2 shows a protrusion annotated as the concave locking portion and discloses that the stopper (18), where the protrusion comes from, engages with a groove (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret the locking groove (15), stopper (18) and stopper engagement groove (12) and the claimed convex shape as annotated on Figure 2 as the locking portion since it serves the same function of preventing the eraser from continuing to protrude outside of the eraser case (Page 4, lines 28-31 and Page 5, lines 1-5).
In reference to claim 5, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B)
In reference to claim 6, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B)
In reference to claim 7, Hashi discloses an eraser case wherein the cylindrical container has a bottomed shape without a lid (see annotated Figure 1), and the twist-up base (3) can be in contact with another member (18, 15, and 20, Figure 4) in an inner bottom of the cylindrical container when the screw shaft body is rotated in the storing direction (Page 5, lines 3-4).
Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism in contact with another member. The applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10). While Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation which allows the feeding body (4) to rotate freely, and undue force on the screw is avoided (Page 3, lines 22-30 and Page 4, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts another internal component as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser.
PNG
media_image3.png
229
339
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to claim 8, Hashi discloses an eraser case wherein the cylindrical container has a bottomed shape without a lid (see annotated Figure 1), and the twist-up base (3) can be in contact with another member (18, 15, and 20, Figure 4) in an inner bottom of the cylindrical container when the screw shaft body is rotated in the storing direction (Page 5, lines 3-4).
Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism in contact with another member. The applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10). While Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation which allows the feeding body (4) to rotate freely, and undue force on the screw is avoided (Page 3, lines 22-30 and Page 4, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts another internal component as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser.
In reference to claim 9, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
Hashi continues to disclose an eraser case wherein the cylindrical container has a bottomed shape without a lid (see annotated Figure 1), and the twist-up base (3) can be in contact with another member (18, 15, and 20, Figure 4) in an inner bottom of the cylindrical container when the screw shaft body is rotated in the storing direction (Page 5, lines 3-4).
Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism in contact with another member. The applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10). While Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation which allows the feeding body (4) to rotate freely, and undue force on the screw is avoided (Page 3, lines 22-30 and Page 4, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts another internal component as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser. Hashi discloses the claimed invention except for the screw hole and that a section of the screw hole in the twist-up base and the idling section can overlap due to deformation of the elastic mechanism. The applicant’s specification notes that the overlapping of the screw shaft and idling section is to prevent damage (Applicant’s specification paragraph 40). Hashi does disclose that due to the elastic deformation of the slot within the eraser holder, the eraser holder overlaps the tapered surface which helps avoid undue forces and therefore avoid damage (Page 3, line 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder so that the elastic deformation of the slot enables the eraser holder overlaps the tapered surface which helps avoid undue forces and therefore avoid damage since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
In reference to claim 10, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
Hashi continues to disclose an eraser case wherein the cylindrical container has a bottomed shape without a lid (see annotated Figure 1), and the twist-up base (3) can be in contact with another member (18, 15, and 20, Figure 4) in an inner bottom of the cylindrical container when the screw shaft body is rotated in the storing direction (Page 5, lines 3-4).
Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism in contact with another member. The applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10). While Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation which allows the feeding body (4) to rotate freely, and undue force on the screw is avoided (Page 3, lines 22-30 and Page 4, lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts another internal component as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser.
Hashi discloses the claimed invention except for the screw hole and that a section of the screw hole in the twist-up base and the idling section can overlap due to deformation of the elastic mechanism. The applicant’s specification notes that the overlapping of the screw shaft and idling section is to prevent damage (Applicant’s specification paragraph 40).
Hashi does disclose that due to the elastic deformation of the slot within the eraser holder, the eraser holder overlaps the tapered surface which helps avoid undue forces and therefore avoid damage (Page 3, line 25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder so that the elastic deformation of the slot enables the eraser holder overlaps the tapered surface which helps avoid undue forces and therefore avoid damage since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B)
In reference to claim 11, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi discloses a threaded section (1) but does not disclose that there are separate sections where a first thread section is near the vicinity of the tip or a second thread section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by extending the screw shaft body and adding multiple thread sections which adds multiple idling sections in between the threaded section instead of one continuous thread section as taught by Hashi in order to prevent the twist up base from coming off with the eraser when pushed out.
Hashi also does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B)
In reference to claim 12, Hashi discloses an eraser case, wherein the screw shaft body comprises of a screw shaft part (2) including, on at least part of its outer circumference, a spiral screw thread (1’) that can be threadedly engaged on the outer circumference of the screw shaft part and an idling section (see annotated Figure 2) that is not threadedly engaged in at least one of the vicinities of the tip or the vicinity of the end in an axial direction. The examiner notes that the idling section is interpreted as portion of the screw shaft body without threads.
Hashi discloses a threaded section (1) but does not disclose that there are separate sections where a first thread section is near the vicinity of the tip or a second thread section.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by extending the screw shaft body and adding multiple thread sections which adds multiple idling sections in between the threaded section instead of one continuous thread section as taught by Hashi in order to prevent the twist up base from coming off with the eraser when pushed out.
Hashi also does not disclose a screw hole in the twist up base and in the outer circumference of the screw shaft part.
However, Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) where the screw shaft body connects to the eraser holder and that while there is no screw hole for the screw shaft to engage with, the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner walls of the eraser body holder (9, Page 2, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B)
In reference to claim 13, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a twist-up base (3) and an idling section (see annotated Figure 1).
Hashi does not disclose the axial length of the idling section is equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base and does not disclose of a screw hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
While Hashi does not expressly discuss the axial length of the idling section, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi to have the axial length of the idling section to be equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 14, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a twist-up base (3) and an idling section (see annotated Figure 1).
Hashi does not disclose the axial length of the idling section is equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base and does not disclose of a screw hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
While Hashi does not expressly discuss the axial length of the idling section, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi to have the axial length of the idling section to be equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 15, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a twist-up base (3) and an idling section (see annotated Figure 1).
Hashi does not disclose the axial length of the idling section is equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base and does not disclose of a screw hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
While Hashi does not expressly discuss the axial length of the idling section, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi to have the axial length of the idling section to be equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 16, Hashi discloses an eraser case with a twist-up base (3) and an idling section (see annotated Figure 1).
Hashi does not disclose the axial length of the idling section is equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base and does not disclose of a screw hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi by omitting the screw hole and have the screw shaft inserted through the eraser holder to push the eraser out of the container and that the screw shaft is threadedly engaged with the inner wall of the eraser holder in order to convert the rotational motion into axial motion since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04, Section II, Part B).
While Hashi does not expressly discuss the axial length of the idling section, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hashi to have the axial length of the idling section to be equal to or greater than an axial length of the screw hole in the twist-up base since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04, Section IV, Part A).
In reference to claim 17, Hashi discloses an eraser case wherein, in the twist-up base (3), an elastic mechanism is provided such that part thereof protrudes toward an inner wall surface (9) of the cylindrical container and can be in contact with the inner wall surface.
The examiner notes that while Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, the applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10).
Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation and come into contact with the step portion (5) which is part of the inner wall surface (Page 3, lines 22-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts the step portion as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser.
In reference to claim 18, Hashi discloses an eraser case wherein, in the twist-up base (3), an elastic mechanism is provided such that part thereof protrudes toward an inner wall surface (9) of the cylindrical container and can be in contact with the inner wall surface.
The examiner notes that while Hashi does not expressly disclose an elastic mechanism, the applicant’s specification notes that the function of the elastic mechanism is to be deformed in order to cause less play (Applicant’s specification paragraph 10).
Hashi does disclose that the eraser holder (9) has a slot (10) that allows its inner diameter to expand by elastic deformation and come into contact with the step portion (5) which is part of the inner wall surface (Page 3, lines 22-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastic deformation of an internal part of an eraser case which contacts the step portion as taught by Hashi in order to avoid undue forces and cause less play of the eraser.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRISHA JOY U FRANCISCO whose telephone number is (571) 272-1224. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 am - 5 pm.
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.
/TRISHA JOY U FRANCISCO/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723