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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-8, 10, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7-10, 12-14, and 17 of copending Application No. 19/273,248 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 1 are recited in claims 1 and 17 of the copending Application, and the limitations of claims 2-8 and 10 are recited in claims 7-10 and 12-14, and 17, and claim 20 is recited in claim 1, 7-10 and 12-14, and 17.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I (claims 1-12, 20) and species of Fig. 7 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden for examination of groups I and II because they are classified in the same cpc class. This is not found persuasive because the examiner has provided sufficient reasons in the restriction requirement mailed on 05/27/2026 to show that there is a serious search burden (see page 3). As an example, the examiner noted that the inventions require a different field of search, such as employing different search strategies and search queries. Note that group I is directed to a system while group II is directed to a method. Method steps require different search strategies and search queries than the elements of the apparatus type limitations of the system recited in group I. Regarding the species, applicant argues that they are interrelated and hence there is no serious search burden for examination of all species. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner has provided sufficient reasons in the restriction requirement mailed on 05/27/2026 to show that there is a serious search burden (see page 4-5). As an example, the examiner noted that the inventions require a different field of search, such as employing different search strategies and search queries. Note that the shapes of the species of Fig. 4, 5, and 7 are clearly and visibly different. For example, the species of Fig. 7 shows serrations 220 on exposed edges 224 with a groove between them. This shape is exclusive to the species shown in Fig. 7 and the species of Fig. 4 and 5 do not show this specific shape and cannot show because they have different shapes. Searching the species of Fig. 7 require using search queries for serrations but searching for the species of Fig. 4 and 5 do not need that.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a system in the preamble. Claim 1 recites “a tool” and further recites that “the tool is configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover.” Hence, claim 1 recites a system that comprises a seal remover that is configured to be coupled to a tool, but then claim 1 also recites the tool itself as “the tool is configured to […].” It is not clear whether a tool is positively recited as a part of the system of claim 1 and is required or not. Hence, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are indefinite and unclear.
The term “sharp” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sharp” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear how sharp the apex should be in order to be considered sharp.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the instant case, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 3-5 are rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
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 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.
(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, 2, 4-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/036235), referred to hereinafter as Hamilton.
With regard to claim 1, Hamilton discloses a system for removing a cap seal from a fastener, the system comprising: a seal remover (100) including fingers (108, or the finger to which element 108 is attached, see Fig. 1) outwardly extending from a base (104), wherein passages are defined between the fingers (Fig. 1), wherein the seal remover is configured (through 102) to be coupled to a distal end of an operative portion of a tool (see Hamilton disclosing “a rotary drive for imparting rotation” to 100, and also disclosing “100 is attached to a rotary drive” and “100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive”), wherein the tool is configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and wherein removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages (Fig. 3A-3C).
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claim 1 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. Hamilton discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention and is capable of performing the recited functions including the seal remover being configured to be coupled to a distal end of an operative portion of a tool, the tool being configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages.
With regard to claim 2, Hamilton further discloses the tool (see Hamilton disclosing “a rotary drive for imparting rotation” to 100, and also disclosing “100 is attached to a rotary drive” and “100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive”).
With regard to claim 4, Hamilton further discloses that the seal remover is removably (through 102) secured to the distal end of the operative portion of the tool (see Hamilton disclosing “a rotary drive for imparting rotation” to 100, and also disclosing “100 is attached to a rotary drive” and “100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive”).
With regard to claim 5, Hamilton further discloses that the tool comprises an actuator (a “rotary drive” comprises an actuator “for imparting rotation” such that “100 is spun about a central axis 110” by the “rotary drive”) coupled to a proximal end of the operative portion (see Hamilton disclosing “a rotary drive for imparting rotation” to 100, and also disclosing “100 is attached to a rotary drive” and “100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive”).
With regard to claim 6, Hamilton further discloses that the fingers are deflectable and configured to frictionally engage the cap seal (the fingers are deflectable because any material would be able to deflect (i.e. be deflectable) even if in very small amount. Moreover, Hamilton discloses that the fingers 108 are “made from material having low bulk hardness”, which means they are cable of being deflected. As an option, Hamilton discloses the material to be non- metallic compounds such as a polymer or a soft metal like an aluminum alloy, which are deflectable. Regarding being configured to frictionally engage the cap seal, see Fig. 3A-3C. Moreover, Hamilton discloses that c ap seal removal is accomplished by aligning seal remover 100 with 130 and urging the cavity of 100 towards the fastener such that the working edges 108 and 116 of 100 engage the cap seal 126 while 100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive. Also see “a cavity 106 with one or more working edges 108 for engaging the sealant”).
With regard to claim 7, Hamilton further discloses that the seal remover is formed from a polymer (see Hamilton disclosing that “suitable materials may include materials primarily comprised of non- metallic compounds such as a polymer”).
With regard to claim 9, Hamilton further discloses that each of the fingers comprises: an extension beam extending from the base (104); and a tooth extending from the extension beam opposite from the base, wherein the tooth includes slanted edges that converge at a sharp apex (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 10, Hamilton further discloses that the fingers are disposed around a central receiving chamber (106) configured to receive the cap seal (Fig. 3A).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 1-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wiseman et al. (US 2017/0259306), referred to hereinafter as Wiseman.
With regard to claim 1, Wiseman discloses a system for removing a cap seal from a fastener, the system comprising: a seal remover (116, 200) including fingers (120, 204) outwardly extending from a base, wherein passages are defined between the fingers (see Fig. 1-12. Also note that having passages between fingers is inherent in having fingers), wherein the seal remover is configured to be coupled to a distal end of an operative portion of a tool (Fig. 9-12), wherein the tool is configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and wherein removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages (Fig. 1-12).
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claim 1 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. Wiseman discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention and is capable of performing the recited functions including the seal remover being configured to be coupled to a distal end of an operative portion of a tool, the tool being configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages.
With regard to claim 2, Wiseman further discloses the tool (Fig. 9-12).
With regard to claim 3, Wiseman further discloses that the seal remover is integrally formed with the distal end of the operative portion of the tool (see Fig. 10-12 showing the seal remover being integral with the tool).
“Integral”, and its variations from the base word, is being read in light of its plain word which means “formed as a unit with another part”. This is in contrast to applicant’s potentially intended claim scope that would better correspond to the term “monolithic and one-piece.”
In re Morris, Fed. Cir. 1997 affirmed the Board's decision that "the term 'integral' is a relatively broad term inclusive of means for maintaining parts in a fixed relationship as a single unit."
With regard to claim 4, Wiseman further discloses that the seal remover is removably secured to the distal end of the operative portion of the tool (Fig. 9).
With regard to claim 5, Wiseman further discloses that the tool comprises an actuator coupled to a proximal end of the operative portion (Fig. 9-12, [0077]).
With regard to claim 6, Wiseman further discloses that the fingers are deflectable and configured to frictionally engage the cap seal (see [0054] disclosing that the material can be any material, such as silicone material, a rubber material, a polymer, nylon, plastic, or some other type of material, which are deflectable. Regarding being configured to frictionally engage the cap seal, see Fig. 7, 10, [0074]).
With regard to claim 7, Wiseman further discloses that the seal remover is formed from a polymer ([0054]).
With regard to claim 8, Wiseman further discloses that the seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal ([0054]).
With regard to claim 9, Wiseman further discloses that each of the fingers comprises: an extension beam extending from the base; and a tooth extending from the extension beam opposite from the base, wherein the tooth includes slanted edges that converge at a sharp apex (Fig. 2-4).
With regard to claim 10, Wiseman further discloses that the fingers are disposed around a central receiving chamber configured to receive the cap seal (Fig. 2-12).
With regard to claim 20, Wiseman discloses a system for removing a cap seal from a fastener, the system comprising: a tool including an operative portion having a distal end, a proximal end, and an actuator coupled to the proximal end (Fig. 9-12); and a seal remover (116, 200) including fingers outwardly extending from a base (Fig. 1-12), wherein passages are defined between the fingers (Fig. 1-12), wherein the fingers are disposed around a central receiving chamber configured to receive the cap seal (Fig. 1-12), and wherein the seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal ([0054]), wherein the seal remover is coupled to the distal end of the operative portion of the tool (Fig. 10-12), wherein the tool is configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and wherein removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages (Fig. 1-12).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/036235), referred to hereinafter as Hamilton.
With regard to claim 3:
Hamilton discloses the system of claim 2, as set forth above.
Hamilton does not appear to explicitly disclose that the seal remover is integrally formed with the distal end of the operative portion of the tool.
However, the court has "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)). See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the seal remover be integrally formed with the distal end of the operative portion of the tool.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/036235), referred to hereinafter as Hamilton in view of Wiseman et al. (US 20170259306), referred to hereinafter as Wiseman.
With regard to claim 8:
Hamilton discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Hamilton does not appear to explicitly disclose that the seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal.
However, Wiseman teaches a seal remover and further teaches that seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and form the seal remover from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal.
With regard to claim 20:
Hamilton discloses a system for removing a cap seal from a fastener, the system comprising: a tool including an operative portion having a distal end, a proximal end, and an actuator coupled to the proximal end (see Hamilton disclosing “a rotary drive for imparting rotation” to 100, and also disclosing “100 is attached to a rotary drive” and “100 is spun about a central axis 110 by a rotary drive”); and a seal remover (100) including fingers (108, or the finger to which element 108 is attached, see Fig. 1) outwardly extending from a base (104), wherein passages are defined between the fingers (Fig. 1), wherein the fingers are disposed around a central receiving chamber (106) configured to receive the cap seal (Fig. 3A), wherein the seal remover is coupled to the distal end of the operative portion of the tool (through 102), wherein the tool is configured to be operated to rotate the seal remover in relation to the cap seal so that the fingers remove the cap seal from the fastener, and wherein removed portions of the cap seal are discharged through and out of the passages (Fig. 3A-3C).
Hamilton does not appear to explicitly disclose that the seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal.
However, Wiseman teaches a seal remover and further teaches that seal remover is formed from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal ([0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and form the seal remover from one or more of nylon, rubber, polyetherimide, or polyacetal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton et al. (WO 2013/036235), referred to hereinafter as Hamilton.
With regard to claims 11-12:
Hamilton discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Hamilton does not appear to explicitly disclose the specific finger profiles recited in claims 11-12.
However, Hamilton teaches that the fingers are “contoured or profiled such that it approximates the profile of the protruding fastener in an installed condition” as well as “in an installed and unsealed condition”, and the fingers can have “a planer or a non-planer form”. Hamilton further teaches that fingers can have “different shapes, sizes, and cutting profiles” in order to “conform to a variety of different protruding fastener geometries.” Hamilton further teaches that the fingers need to engage with the cap seal in order to remove it. Therefore, Hamilton establishes a result variable optimization, in which the variables being the shape, size, and profile of the fingers and their cutting profiles are optimized in order to conform to a variety of different fastener and cap seal geometries while also being able to engage with the cap seal sufficiently to remove it (i.e., results).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different seal removers with different finger profiles through routine experimentation and choose a finger profile that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the recited profiles in claims 11-12 in which each of the fingers comprises: a wedge-shaped main body outwardly extending from the base, wherein the wedge-shaped main body comprises an arcuate outer wall connected to an arcuate inner wall by angled sidewalls; a cutting end comprising a flat leading surface connected to a beveled trailing surface, wherein the beveled trailing surface downwardly cants from the flat leading surface; and a cutting groove on an interior surface at a junction of the inner wall and the cutting end, the cutting groove comprises an upright wall connected to an angled wall that cants toward a central longitudinal axis, wherein the upright wall includes an expanded leading edge that connects to a tapered portion that terminates in a tapered trailing edge, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiseman et al. (US 2017/0259306), referred to hereinafter as Wiseman.
With regard to claims 11-12:
Wiseman discloses the system of claim 1, as set forth above.
Wiseman does not appear to explicitly disclose the specific finger profiles recited in claims 11-12.
However, Wiseman teaches that the fingers can have any shape ([0047], [0060]), and the profile and shape of the fingers are designed and selected such that they are capable of removing and collecting the cap seal ([0046], [0047], [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to try different seal removers with different finger profiles through routine experimentation with the goal of designing and selecting the shape and profile of the fingers such that they are capable of removing and collecting the cap seal at hand, and choose a finger profile that best suits their particular application at hand, and arrive at the recited profiles in claims 11-12 in which each of the fingers comprises: a wedge-shaped main body outwardly extending from the base, wherein the wedge-shaped main body comprises an arcuate outer wall connected to an arcuate inner wall by angled sidewalls; a cutting end comprising a flat leading surface connected to a beveled trailing surface, wherein the beveled trailing surface downwardly cants from the flat leading surface; and a cutting groove on an interior surface at a junction of the inner wall and the cutting end, the cutting groove comprises an upright wall connected to an angled wall that cants toward a central longitudinal axis, wherein the upright wall includes an expanded leading edge that connects to a tapered portion that terminates in a tapered trailing edge. MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar systems such as US 2014/0017021.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights