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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weterrings et al. (U.S. 6,026,685, hereafter referred to as Weterrings) in view of Bang (U.S. 4,488,432).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Weterrings teaches an adjustable measuring cup, comprising: a piston 12 having an upper end terminating in a platform 48 and an opposing lower base 18; a sleeve 14 having an upper rim, a lower end, an interior sidewall 28 and an exterior sidewall 30, the piston being received within the sleeve for movement of the piston with respect to the sleeve along a central axis to create a plurality of selectable interior volumes (see figure 1), each of the selectable interior volumes being bounded by the platform 48, the upper rim, and a selected portion of the interior sidewall between the platform and the upper rim; the piston further having an engagement 24 surface and a disengagement surface 16, the engagement surface 24 extending radially outwardly from the piston relatively farther than the disengagement surface (see figure 6); and a bumper 44 mounted on the sleeve, the bumper having an interior surface extending radially inwardly from the interior sidewall (see figure 6).
However, Weterrings does not explicitly teach the sleeve being rotatable with respect to the piston about the central axis for rotational movement of the sleeve between an engagement position and a disengagement position, wherein in the engagement position the interior surface of the bumper is frictionally engaged with the engagement surface, and in the disengagement position the interior surface of the bumper is disengaged from the engagement surface and positioned over the disengagement surface. Weterrings further teaches a plurality of engagement portions (20, 22, 24, 26) and the spaces in between serve as disengagement portions.
Bang teaches a similar measuring device comprising a piston 14 and sleeve 12, and lugs 40 extending inwardly from the inner cylindrical wall 26 of the sleeve 12 (provide the same functionality as a bumper of the current invention), wherein the sleeve 12 is rotatable with respect to the piston about the central axis for rotational movement of the sleeve between an engagement position and a disengagement position (see Abstract, ‘A measuring cup including a transparent open-ended cylinder and a metering piston mounted in the cylinder for longitudinal movement and rotational movement with respect to the cylinder’, ‘By rotating the piston with respect to the cylinder, the lugs can be moved out of vertical alignment with the slots, and every lug, when it is in adjacent relationship to the lower disc, will prevent movement of the piston longitudinally of the cylinder when the disc comes to rest on the positioning lug’); wherein in the engagement position the interior surface of the bumper is frictionally engaged with the engagement surface (see figure 9), and in the disengagement position the interior surface of the bumper is disengaged from the engagement surface and positioned over the disengagement surface (see figure 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Weterrings with the teaching of Bang in order to prevent movement longitudinally of the cylinder.
Neither reference explicitly teaches a plurality of bumpers, wherein in the engagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is frictionally engaged with one of the plurality of engagement surfaces, and wherein in the disengagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is disengaged from the plurality of engagement surfaces and is positioned over the disengagement surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Weterrings with the teaching of Bang since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Weterrings further teaches wherein the engagement surface 24 and disengagement surface 16 extends parallel to the central axis (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Weterrings further teaches wherein the bumper 44 further extends radially outward from the exterior sidewall of the sleeve (see figure 6).
Regarding claims 5, 6 and 16, neither reference explicitly teaches a plurality of bumpers and a plurality of engagement surfaces, wherein in the engagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is frictionally engaged with one of the plurality of engagement surfaces, and wherein in the disengagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is disengaged from the plurality of engagement surfaces and is positioned over the disengagement surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Weterrings with the teaching of Bang since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 7, Weterrings further teaches a plurality of engagement portions (20, 22, 24, 26) and the spaces in between serve as disengagement portions.
Regarding claims 8, 17 and 18, Weterrings further teaches parts of the device 10 preferably are made out of a tough breakage-resistant thermoplastic material such as polycarbonate.
Additionally, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Weterrings further teaches further comprising a set of volumetric markings positioned on one or the other of the sleeve or the piston (see figure 2; see column 4, lines 28-30).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Weterrings further teaches further comprising an elastomeric flange 46 (see column 4, lines 25, 26) extending radially outward from the piston along the perimeter of the platform.
Regarding claim 13, Weterrings further teaches wherein the engagement surfaces (20, 22, 24, 26) are each distributed equidistantly about the perimeter of the piston (see column 3, lines 27-30).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Neither reference explicitly teaches a plurality of bumpers, wherein in the engagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is frictionally engaged with one of the plurality of engagement surfaces, and wherein in the disengagement position the interior surface of each of the plurality of bumpers is disengaged from the plurality of engagement surfaces and is positioned over the disengagement surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Weterrings with the teaching of Bang since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 15, Weterrings further teaches wherein each of the engagement surfaces extend about the perimeter of the piston for a distance greater than that of each of the disengagement surfaces (see figure 6: 16, 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMEL E WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-4pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/JAMEL E WILLIAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights