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 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.
In claim 2, the “sonic device configured to produce sound engaged by the trigger” is a bowl ([0065]), cymbal ([0082]), or any “developed device configured to produce a sound” ([0082]).
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.
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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the frame proximate the elongate slot” is idiomatically incorrect and appears to mean -the frame proximal to the elongate slot-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (1,175,816).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts teaches a timer, comprising: an hourglass (7) including: a top globe (a); a bottom globe (b); and a neck connecting the top globe and the bottom globe and defining a sand passageway (page 1, lines 50-52) between the top globe and the bottom globe (Fig. 1); a frame (1-2, 4-5, 8) pivotally supporting the hourglass at the neck with the bottom globe disposed below the top globe; and a trigger (b, 6, 8) pivotally coupled to the frame in a position to be engaged by the bottom globe when the hourglass pivots on the frame to a selected extent; wherein: the hourglass is configured to contain sand disposed inside one or more of the top globe, the bottom globe, and the neck (page 1, lines 50-52); the hourglass is configured to allow the sand to flow from the top globe to the bottom globe through the neck under the influence of gravity (page 1, lines 50-52); the hourglass pivots on the frame in response to sand flowing from the top globe to the bottom globe (page 1, lines 50-63); and the selected extent the hourglass must pivot for the bottom globe to engage the trigger corresponds to a selected amount of time. Roberts discloses an alarm (title), and an alarm by definition corresponds to an amount of time. The shape of the hourglass and amount of sand sets the point and time at which the hourglass will pivot.
Regarding claim 2, Roberts teaches (Fig. 1) the timer of claim 1, further comprising a sonic device (3, 6) configured to produce sound when engaged by the trigger (8) in response to the trigger being engaged by the bottom globe. The bottom globe pivoting causes 8 to move, which carries 6 and causes it to strike 3.
Regarding claim 3, Roberts teaches the timer of claim 2, wherein the sonic device includes an acoustic bowl (3 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts teaches (Fig. 1) the timer of claim 3, wherein: the sonic device further includes a sphere (6) configured to engage the acoustic bowl (3) after being engaged by the trigger (8); and the acoustic bowl produces a sound when engaged by the sphere.
Regarding claim 19, Roberts teaches (Fig. 1) the timer of claim 1, wherein the trigger include a curved member (8) and is pivotally connected to the frame (at 10) at a medial position (5) of the curved member.
Regarding claim 20, Roberts teaches the timer of claim 1, further comprising a base supporting the frame (the triangular legs supporting 1 in Fig. 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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts.
Regarding claim 11, Roberts discloses the timer of claim 2, but does not show the sonic device including a cymbal.
Cymbals are known to be struck by hard elements to create a sound.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Roberts’s acoustic device for a cymbal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the predictable result of creating a sound when struck by Robert’s striker.
Regarding claims 12-13 Roberts discloses (Fig. 1) the timer of claim 11, wherein the cymbal is suspended from the frame in a path of the trigger when the trigger (8) pivots relative to the frame (1-2); the cymbal creates a sound when contacted by the trigger (6); the trigger is held in a cocked position spaced from the cymbal (Fig. 1); the trigger is pivoted out of the cocked position when the bottom globe engages the trigger (page 1, lines 50-55); the trigger pivots from the cocked position to a cocked position under the force of gravity after being pivoted out of the cocked position (page 1, lines 50-55); and the trigger contacts the cymbal in the contact position (page 1, lines 56-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 5, the prior art does not show or suggest a frame defining a track so that a sphere rolls down the track from an upper end to a lower end to engage an acoustic bowl disposed at the lower end when a trigger engages the sphere, in combination with the other limitations.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not show or suggest a trigger adjustment mechanism including a variable finger pivotally connected to a fixed finger and a fastener configured to selectively secure the variable finger in a desired pivot position relative to the fixed finger.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art does not show or suggest a frame defining an elongate slot, and a trigger pivotally connected to the frame proximal to the elongate slot, in combination with the other limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Van Dam (US 2,259,402) teaches an hourglass that pivots to trigger an electrical circuit. Koester (US 2,064,759) teaches an hourglass that pivots and rolls on a track to ring a bell (Figs. 1-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Hwang whose telephone number is (571)272-1191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Renee Luebke can be reached at 571-272-2009.
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.
/MATTHEW DANIEL HWANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2833
/renee s luebke/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2833