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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 5 “the tooth and the body are molded as a single piece”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nave (U.S. Pub. App. 2012-0266636) in view of Willerton et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2022-0297994).
For claim 1, Nave discloses a combination padlock with an integrated bottle opener, comprising: a body (110) having a shackle (120) and two side surfaces spaced apart from each other; wherein, a central segment of the body extends and protrudes a tooth in the direction of the shackle; wherein, a cross-sectional thickness of a free edge of the tooth is narrower than that of the body cross-section; and wherein, the tooth extends and protrudes from only one of the side surfaces of the body.
Nave does not teach a central segment of the body extends and protrudes a tooth in the direction of the shackle; wherein, a cross-sectional thickness of a free edge of the tooth is narrower than that of the body cross-section; and wherein, the tooth extends and protrudes from only one of the side surfaces of the body.
Willerton et al. teaches a simple tooth 100 with protruding portion 116 for opening bottle with ease (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nave with a tooth such that the tooth is disposed at the central segment of the body and the protruding portion 116 protrudes in the direction of the shackle; wherein, a cross-sectional thickness of a free edge of the tooth is narrower than that of the body cross-section; and wherein, the tooth 100 extends and protrudes from only one of the side surfaces of the body, as taught by Willerton et al. with a reasonable expectation of success of easy operation of bottle opening.
For claim 3, Nave modified with Willerton et al. teaches the combination padlock with an integrated bottle opener according to claim 1, wherein the tooth is embedded in one of the side surfaces of the body, and a virtual surface extending from a surface of the shackle is spaced apart from a virtual surface extending from a surface of the tooth (When Nave modified with the tooth of Willerton et al. such that the tooth 100 is disposed at the central segment of the body so that the width of the tooth 100 is parallel to the plane of Nave’s shackle 120. With this modification the combination teaches the claim limitations.)
For claim 6, Nave modified with Willerton et al. teaches the combination padlock with an integrated bottle opener according to claim 1, wherein the tooth extends from one end portion of the body in a longitudinal direction to a boundary of the other end portion of the body in the longitudinal direction (Nave modified with the tooth of Willerton et al. teaches the claimed limitation.)
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nave (U.S. Pub. App. 2012-0266636) in view of Willerton et al. (U.S. Pub. App. 2022-0297994) and further in view of Hoffman et al. (D 302,232).
For claim 2, Nave modified with Willerton et al. teaches the combination padlock with an integrated bottle opener according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the cross-sectional thickness of the tooth tapers from the central segment of the body toward the shackle.
Hoffman et al. teaches a bottle opener with cross-sectional thickness of the tooth of the opener tapers for better grip at the flanged cap of the bottle (Figures 1-4.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the tooth 116 of the combination of Nave modified with Willerton et al. such that the tooth in view of Hoffman et al. so that the cross-sectional thickness of the tooth tapers from the central segment of the body toward the shackle with a reasonable expectation of success of having better grip at the flanged caps.
For claim 7, Nave modified with Willerton et al. teaches the combination padlock with an integrated bottle opener according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the cross-sectional thickness in a longitudinal direction of the tooth tapers from a protruded portion of the tooth at the boundary of the body toward the shackle.
Hoffman et al. teaches a bottle opener with cross-sectional thickness of the tooth of the opener tapers for better grip at the flanged cap of the bottle (Figures 1-4.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the tooth 116 of the combination of Nave modified with Willerton et al. such that the tooth in view of Hoffman et al. so that the cross-sectional thickness in a longitudinal direction of the tooth tapers from a protruded portion of the tooth at the boundary of the body toward the shackle with a reasonable expectation of success of having better grip at the flanged caps.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 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.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides examples of similar inventions. Based on the prior art of record it would not have been considered obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified any of the cited prior art to arrive at the invention as claimed without impermissible hindsight. None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches the limitations as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675