DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A cursory review of the application appears to show that the applicant (the inventor) is a pro se inventor (an inventor who is filing their own paperwork without the aid of an attorney). Therefore, if the applicant has any question or concerns with regards to the prosecution of this application (how to respond to a restriction, how to overcome the rejection, etc.) they are encouraged to the contact the examiner of this application, Aaron McConnell, at (303) 297 – 4608. Additionally, should applicant have immediate questions about the general patent process, they can contact the pro se hotline, contact info found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/14/2023.
The Examiner notes claims 1 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 is/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.
Regarding claim 1
The claim states "a plurality of peripherally spaced vertical embossments (ribs)." It is unclear whether the items are embossments or ribs. Each term has its own meaning or interpretation which can be in conflict with the other. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as ribs.
The Examiner notes that stating the twist-off bottle caps being either 21 and/or 27 point is adding anything to the structure of the device. The Examiner would recommend removing the two instances of “both 21 and/or 27 point” from the claims.
The claim states "a single row on the inner surface of the circular wall." There is no antecedent basis for “the inner surface” and “the circular wall” or in other words it is the first time it is mentioned in the claims. Therefore the claim will be interpreted as “a single row on a inner surface of a circular wall.” It is unclear where the inner surface and circular wall are located. Is there a cavity or through hole in the main body? If so, is the hole in the center of the circular, cylindrical body? For examining purposes if there is any inner surface on any circular wall it will read on the limitation.
The claim states "a groove in the top of said main body slightly larger in diameter, width and depth to the wall of cup shaped lens (d)." It is unclear what the groove’s dimensions are as there is no mention about it’s dimensions in relation to the main body. Also no cup shaped lens has been stated or described in the claim yet for the groove to be compared against. For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “a groove in the top of said main body
Further the term “slightly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "slightly" 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. For examining purposes, "slightly" is interpreted to be removed. All other instances of “slightly” are interpreted as being removed.
The claim states "a thin circular backup disk
The claim states “a thin circular art disk to display art wherein said art disk is similar in diameter to said backup disk (b).” the term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "similar" 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. For examining purposes, "similar" is interpreted to be removed and the limitation is “a thin circular art disk to display art wherein said art disk has a diameter that is no larger than the diameter of said backup disk
The claim states "a circular, clear and transparent cup shaped lens comprising an internal circular wall larger in diameter; an external circular wall smaller in diameter; and a wall shallower in depth than the groove in the top of said main body (a) to facilitate a friction fit when engaged therein." It is unclear what the cup shaped lens’ features are. Is there one circular wall or is there more than one? For examining purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “a circular, clear and transparent cup shaped lens comprising a disk and circular wall extending down from the edges of the disk; wherein the circular wall corresponds to and is friction fit into the groove in the top of said main body
The Examiner recommends looking at other prior art either cited by the Examiner or cited by the Applicant’s IDS for examples of how to word the claims. Please reach out with questions.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taktakian (US 5022288) in view of Rowland (US 4433597), hereinafter Taktakian and Rowland, respectively.
Regarding claim 1. (Each claim status is listed above in the Status of Claims section) Taktakian discloses a device to remove both 21 and/or 27 point twist-off crown bottle caps [Fig 1-2; 10] comprising:
(a) a circular, cylindrical main body [16] having a plurality of peripherally spaced vertical ribs [Fig 1; 40] comprised within a single row on an inner surface of a circular wall [Fig 1-2; 40 form a single row on an inner surface of 22] respectively adapted to engage the vertical grooves of both 21 and/or 27 point twist-off crown bottle caps [Fig 2; the ribs can engage a bottle cap]; and a groove in the top of said main body [Fig 1-2; 46 (it is noted that while not claimed 46 has a larger diameter, width, and depth of the wall of 14)];
(b) a thin circular backup disk [Fig 1-2; 44];
(c) a thin circular art disk to display art wherein said art disk has a diameter that is no larger than the diameter of said backup disk [Fig 2; 36 has a diameter smaller than 44]; and
(d) a circular…cup shaped lens [Fig 1-2; 14] comprising a disk and circular wall extending down from the edges of the disk [Fig 1-2; 14 has a disk with a circular wall that extends down]; wherein the circular wall corresponds to and is friction fit into the groove in the top of said main body [Fig 2].
Taktakian may not explicitly disclose the lens being clear and transparent.
However Rowland teaches a lens over an art disk being clear and transparent [Fig 15-16; Column 5, Lines 3-19; the item 12 is a clear and transparent lens that allows viewing of 21 which is an art disk].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cup shaped lens as disclosed by Taktakian to be clear and transparent as taught by Rowland for the purpose allowing the art disk or logo to be seen [Rowland: Column 5, Lines 3-19].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723