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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to communication filed on 10/26/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both the drawing instrument and the sensor device in Fig. 2-1 and Fig. 2-2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
character “12” refers to a cover in paragraph [0048] and refers to both a “first drawing instrument” and a “second drawing instrument” in paragraph [0052].
[0029] of the specification incorporates “US2020166668A1” by reference. However, no such PGPUB exists. Examiner believes this is a typo and that paragraph [0029] should recite to incorporate “US20200166668A1” by reference.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, first limitation recites “… between a retraction position (A) and non-retracted position (B) …”. Examiner believes there is a typo and the first limitation should recite “… between a retraction position (A) and a non-retracted position (B) …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a detectable component configured to be detected in claim 1;
a sensor device configured to collect data in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Paragraphs [0029] and [0032] provide corresponding structure for a detectable component configured to be detected.
Paragraphs [0029] and [0031] provide corresponding structure for a senor device configured to collect data.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
Regarding claim 1
Claim 1 recites a system (apparatus) claim consisting of three structural elements:
- a drawing unit comprising a drawing unit, comprising a drawing instrument and configured to move the drawing instrument between a retracted and a non-retracted position;
- a memory configured to store an image; and
- a sensor device configured to collect position data of the drawing unit using one or more sensors.
The sensor device of the third limitation is further configured to output the position data to the drawing unit, wherein the drawing unit determines to retract or extend the drawing instrument based on the received position data and image data stored in the memory. However, the claim recites the sensor device is “configured to output the data to the drawing unit when the drawing unit is moved by a user such that a drawing tip of the drawing unit facing the target surface is in contact with the target surface, …”. Thus, the claim recites a system with an input means (i.e., a sensor device) and requires a user to use the input means in order for the system to function.
As such, claim 1 recites both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus, and therefore the claim is indefinite. “Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.")”. MPEP2173.05(p).
Dependent claims 2-19 are likewise rejected.
Regarding claim 14
Claim 14 recites “the driving signals.” However, this element lacks antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
Examiner’s note: antecedent basis for “the driving signals” is established in claim 13. However, claim 14 depends on claim 1. As such, claim 14 is being examined as depending on claim 13 for the purposes of establishing antecedent basis for “the driving signals.”
Regarding claim 20
Claim 20 recites “the drawing unit,” “the sensor device,” “the drawing tip,” and “the target surface.” However, these elements lack antecedent basis. MPEP 2173.05(e).
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 1, 3-10, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBROVSKY (US20170036349A1) in view of JOBERT (US20150279537A1) (hereinafter – “DUBROVSKY-JOBERT”).
Regarding claim 1
DUBROVSKY teaches:
a drawing unit comprising a drawing instrument ([0049]: mobile robot 12, actuated marker 14), [0066]: marker 14 mountable for actuation by the actuator 22 in an aperture 26 in the robot body at the center of rotation of robot body; [0110]: actuating the actuator 22 to apply the marker 14 to surface 16), wherein the target surface extends along a first axis (x) and a second axis (y) and forms an angle with the third axis (z) ([0049]: mobile robot is able to drive on and modify (i.e., draw or erase on) surface (i.e., magnetic whiteboard) 16), and
a memory configured to store an image ([0116]: microcontroller 56 includes input/output and memory, microcontroller communicates with external controller 38 such as smartphone; [0163]: robot can be controlled according to external event-action, such as receiving a camera image capture from smartphone/external controller 38),
a sensor device configured to collect data relating to a position of the drawing unit [0064]: relative position sensors to estimate location and execute precise position commands;), and wherein the drawing unit determines when to move the drawing instrument to the non-retracted position (B) or to the retracted position (A) on the basis of the data relating to the position of the drawing unit and the image stored in memory ([0081]: robot can be controlled via external device 38 (i.e., smartphone); [0182]: “by script, by predetermined routine, by an algorithm based on the surface 16 characteristics, or by manual or partial manual control, the robot 12 can be driven back and forth while drawing or marking”).
DUBROVSKY is not relied on for wherein the drawing unit comprises a detectable component configured to be detected by one or more sensors. DUBROVSKY is also not relied on for a sensor device configured to collect data relating to a position of the drawing unit through the one or more sensors.
However, JOBERT in analogous art teaches:
a drawing unit comprising a drawing instrument ([0043]: pencil 4 has a tip or point 8 which deposits a colored liquid to a medium), wherein the drawing unit comprises a detectable component configured to be detected by one or more sensors ([0048]: system comprises a magnetic ring 14; Fig. 1 below shows magnetic ring 14 affixed to drawing unit/pencil 4), and
a sensor device configured to collect data relating to a position of the drawing unit through the one or more sensors ([0048]: “system 2 comprises a magnetic ring 14 and an apparatus 16 for locating the point in the XYZ reference frame from the measured position and orientation of the ring 14”; [0054]: apparatus 16 comprises magnetometers).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
526
media_image1.png
Greyscale
JOBERT, Fig. 1 – drawing instrument 4 comprising drawing instrument 8 and detectable component 14, sensor device 16
DUBROVSKY and JOBERT are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of drawing systems wherein the position of the drawing instrument is determined. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JOBERT to the teachings of DUBROVSKY such that JOBERT’s system for determining the position of a drawing instrument on a drawing surface could be used with DUBROVSKY’s drawing system for the purposes of marking the drawing surface at the correct position according to image data stored in memory. Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JOBERT also teaches wherein the sensor device comprises a digital surface and the one or more sensors are arranged in an array along the digital surface (Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 4
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JOBERT also teaches wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is a magnetic field sensor and the detectable component generates a magnetic field configured to be detected by the magnetic field sensor ([0048]: magnetic ring 14; [0054]: apparatus 16 comprises network of magnetometers to locate ring 14).
Regarding claim 5
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JOBERT also teaches wherein the detectable component is a permanent magnet or an electromagnet ([0072]: ring 14 comprises an outer layer 44 of magnetic material; [0074]: “magnetic material which makes up this layer 44 is a ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic material […] The power of this permanent magnet is typically …”).
Regarding claim 6
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more sensors is an electro-optical sensor ([0129]: measuring relative motion between the robot 12 and drive surface 16 using optical sensors).
Regarding claim 7
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor device comprises one or more first wireless communication interfaces configured to transmit the data of the one or more sensors to the drawing unit and/or a mobile device. However, DUBROVSKY does teach one or more first wireless communication interfaces configured to transmit data to the drawing unit via a mobile device ([0117]: wireless connection to allow users to connect with robot on a smartphone).
The DUBROVSKY-JOBERT combination teaches a sensor device configured to output data to a drawing unit. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of DUBROVSKY to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that DUBROVSKY’s wireless communication interface would be incorporated to JOBERT’s sensor device for the purposes of transmitting the sensed position data to the drawing unit.
Regarding claim 8
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JOBERT also teaches wherein the sensor device comprises at least a portion of the memory (Fig. 1, [0060]: memory 34).
Regarding claim 9
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
JOBERT is silent as to the power supply of a sensor device. DUBROVSKY does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor device comprises an energy storage configured to provide electrical power to the at least one or more sensors. However, DUBROVSKY does teach an energy storage device configured to provide electrical power to a least one or more sensors ([0161]: robot can be powered by batteries 32).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of DUBROVSKY to the teachings of the DUBROVSKY-JOBERT combination such that DUBROVSKY’s battery could be used in DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s sensor device for the purposes of powering the sensor device.
Regarding claim 10
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the drawing unit comprises a control unit configured to receive the data of the one or more sensors relating to the position of the drawing unit through a second wireless communication interface and configured to determine location coordinates of the drawing unit relative to a reference point within or on the sensor device based on the received data ([0116]: robot uses a microcontroller for managing sensors, actuators, and executing higher-level functions, microcontroller communicates with a wireless module “microcontroller 56 includes input/output peripherals; memory that nontransitorally stores computer-executable software code for, e.g., displacing the robot and actuator in response to and as a function of measurement from the sensors; and a processor in communication with the memory and the input/output peripherals”).
Regarding claim 12
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the control unit is configured to receive the image via the second wireless communication interface from the mobile device and is configured to store the image in memory ([0116]: microcontroller comprising IO peripherals and memory and capable of being in communication with smartphone; [0163]: data from external controller includes images captured with camera).
Regarding claim 18
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the drawing unit comprises a user interface configured to indicate at least the operating state of the drawing system, wherein the user interface comprises at least one of a button, a switch, a display device, one or more light emitting diodes, a tactile vibration system, a sound interaction system comprising a speaker and/or microphone configured to allow voice control of the smart drawing system, or a combination thereof ([0090]: feedback can be provided by robot or external device 38, i.e., smartphone).
Regarding claim 20
DUBROVSKY teaches capturing an image with a camera ([0163]: receiving a camera image capture); guiding the drawing unit [0170]: “push the pen 14 down into contact with the drive surface 16 (i.e., target surface) to mark the drive surface 16).
DUBROVSKY is not relied on for a sensor device.
However, JOBERT in analogous art does teach this claim limitation ([0048]: “system 2 comprises a magnetic ring 14 and an apparatus 16 for locating the point in the XYZ reference frame”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of JOBERT to the teachings of DUBROVSKY such that JOBERT’s sensor device could be used with DUBROVSKY’s drawing unit for the purposes of providing a reference from which to make a position determination.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBROVSKY-JOBERT in view of SPEARS (US20140340361A1).
Regarding claim 2
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT is not relied on for wherein the sensor device comprises a drawing frame and the one or more sensors are located at an inner side of one or more inner sides of the drawing frame.
However, SPEARS in analogous art teaches:
a drawing frame and one or more sensors are located at an inner side of one or more inner sides of the drawing frame ([0044]: positioning module 350 rotationally sweeps optical beams 132 and 134 along planar surface 190 from fixed locations within position module).
SPEARS is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of drawing systems wherein the position of the drawing instrument is determined. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of SPEARS to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that SPEARS’s method of position determination of the writing instrument could be augmented with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s drawing system such that SPEARS’s position determination via optical sensing could be used with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s position determination via magnetic sensing to determine a weighted position fix for the purposes of configuring the system to draw at higher resolutions.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBROVSKY-JOBERT in view of RAYNER (US20140049060A1).
Regarding claim 11
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT are not relied on for wherein the target surface is human skin and the sensor device comprises a fixation band that is configured to be wrapped around a human body part corresponding to the target surface.
However, SPEARS in analogous art does teach this claim limitation (FIG. 7B shows a tablet (i.e., drawing unit) with a fixation band wrapped around a human body part).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of RAYNER to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that RAYNER’s fixation band could be used with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s drawing unit such for the purposes of configuring the system to deposit tattoos on a subject.
Claims 13-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBROVSKY-JOBERT in view of MATSUMOTO (US20220097367A1) (hereinafter – “DUBROVSKY-JOBERT-MATSUMOTO”).
Regarding claim 13
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 10 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT are not relied on for wherein the control unit generates driving signals based on the image and the location coordinates of the drawing unit relative to the reference point within or on the sensor device.
However, MATSUMOTO in analogous art teaches to generate driving signals based on the image and the location coordinate of the drawing unit relative to a reference point ([0035]: circuit outputs a control signal for controlling the ejection of ink from the ejection head based on image information and position information).
MATSUMOTO is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of ink deposition systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of MATSUMOTO to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that MATSUMOTO’s method of generating drive signals based on image and position information would be used with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s drawing system for the purposes of providing signals to the drawing instrument actuator to deposit ink in accordance with an image.
Regarding claim 14
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT-MATSUMOTO teaches the elements of claim 13 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the drawing unit further comprising a moving mechanism, wherein the moving mechanism is mechanically coupled to the drawing instrument via a gripper element ([0145]: actuator 22 uses a compressible roller to apply pressure and grip the marker 14 to move it; [0169]: mechanism to actuate a pen 14) and is configured to move the drawing instrument linearly along the third axis between the retracted position (A) and the non-retracted position (B) based on the driving signals from the control unit ([0170]: actuator arm 94 actuates the pen to come into contact with target surface).
Regarding claim 15
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT-MATSUMOTO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the gripper element is movable arranged inside the drawing unit and is configured to transfer the linear movement generated by the moving mechanism to the drawing instrument ([0145]: compressible roller to grip the mark to move it).
Regarding claim 16
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT-MATSUMOTO teaches the elements of claim 14 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches wherein the moving mechanism comprises a linear motor, or a DC or AC motor in combination with one of a screw-and-nut mechanism, a slider-crank mechanism, or a rack-and-pinion mechanism ([0169]: single actuation motor 91 to actuate pen 14; [0170]: actuator arm 94 rotated by actuation motor 91 to guide linear motion).
Regarding claim 19
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY also teaches receiving an image from a camera ([0163]: robot can be controlled according to external event-action, such as receiving a camera image capture from smartphone/external controller 38);
preparing the image to be drawn on the target surface such that dimensions of the image matches the dimensions of the sensor device defined by a first axis (x) and a second axis (y) ([0058]: robot is designed to mark a target surface; [0116]: microcontroller for executing higher level functions);
receiving data relating to a position of the drawing unit and determining location coordinates of the drawing unit relative to a reference point inside or on the sensor device based on the received data ([0064]: relative position sensors to estimate location and execute precise position commands).
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT are not relied on for generating driving signals based on the image and the location coordinates of the drawing unit.
However, SPEARS in analogous art teaches generating driving signals based on the image and the location coordinates of the drawing unit ([0035]: circuit outputs a control signal for controlling the ejection of ink from the ejection head based on image information and position information).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of SPEARS to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that SPEARS’s driving signal generation could be used with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s smart drawing system for the purposes of depositing ink on the target surface according to image capture supplied to the drawing unit.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DUBROVSKY-JOBERT in view of DELBES (US20220348035A1).
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT teaches the elements of claim 1 as outlined above.
DUBROVSKY-JOBERT are not relied on for wherein the drawing unit comprises a body with a closable opening through which the drawing instrument can be removed and/or exchanged by the user.
However, DELBES in analogous art teaches this claim limitation ([0036]: “writing instrument 10 comprises a removable cap 16 configured to allow feeding of a refill 24 into the reservoir 13, when the writing tip 14 is removed”, [0047]: replacement tip 50).
DELBES is analogous art to the claimed invention because they are from the same field of writing instruments. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of DELBES to the teachings of DUBROVSKY-JOBERT such that DELBES’s cover could be used with DUBROVSKY-JOBERT’s drawing unit for the purposes of making the unit aesthetically pleasing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US20200376855A1) teaches a skin printing device configured to receive images from a server via user selection.
Aubouy et al. (US20120249634A1) teaches a sensor device.
Ito et al. (JP6717042B2) teaches a droplet discharge device with position detection.
Azdoud et al. (US20220152371A1) teaches an automatic tattoo apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael V Farina whose telephone number is (571)272-4982. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-6:00 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/M.V.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115