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 § 102
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, 6, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howe et al. (US 4,696,119).
Regarding claim 1, Howe et al. disclose an animal tag applicator (“A”; Figures 9-17, Title) comprising: a first body portion (Figure 14) comprising: a first jaw portion (see Jaws in drawing below; the boundary between the jaw portions and the central portions can be arbitrarily designated) configured to engage a first portion of an animal tag; a first handle portion (34; see Handle Portions in drawing below); and a first central portion (see Possible Central Portions in drawing below - the boundaries of the central portion can be arbitrarily set as claimed) between the first jaw portion and the first handle portion; a second body portion (Figure 16) comprising: a second jaw portion (see Jaws in drawing below; the jaw of Figure 16 being the second jaw portion) configured to engage a second portion of an animal tag; a second handle portion (35; see Handle Portions in drawing below); and a second central portion (see Possible Central Portions in drawing below) between the second jaw portion and the second handle portion; and a clamp bush (38) configured to retain the first central portion and the second central portion together (col. 9, line 39 to col. 10, line 16); wherein an outer face (radially outward surface of 37) of the first central portion comprises a raised first border and an outer face (radially outward surface of 36) of the second central portion comprises a raised second border (see raised border below; each side of the applicator would have a raised border which can be regarded as the first or second border).
PNG
media_image1.png
843
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
344
241
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arc][AltContent: arc][AltContent: textbox (Raised Border)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Jaws)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Possible Central Portions)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Handle Portions)]
Regarding claim 4, the clamp bush is configured to limit side-to-side movement of the first central portion and the second central portion within the clamp bush (col. 9, line 68 to col. 10, line 11).
Regarding claim 6, the clamp bush is configured to minimize friction when the first central portion and/or second central portion move relative to the clamp bush (col. 10, lines 12-17 - the clamp bush helps maintain a tight yet usable clearance which would minimize wear/friction as compared to an overly tight or loose clearance).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, the raised borders are around an outer edge of the outer face of the each central portion as evident from the drawing above.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (US 4,696,119) in view of Herbert (US 5,560,107).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16, Howe et al. fail to disclose the specific height of the raised borders. The borders are formed from a countersink portion of the outer face (col. 10, lines 5-11).
Herbert discloses a plier-type tool (such tools being reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of using a plier-type tool for tagging animals) having a countersink portion (60; Figure 3) depth of between about 0.1mm and about 0.5mm or about 0.3mm (col. 3, lines 24-26) for accommodation of a pivoting structure (64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Herbert to have made the height of the border (i.e. depth of the countersink) relative to the outer face to be between about 0.1mm and 0.5mm or about 0.3mm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (US 4,696,119) in view of Puro (US 4,414,868).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Howe et al. fail to disclose a specific clearance between the clamp bush and the borders as claimed.
Puro disclose a plier-type tool (Title; such tools being reasonably pertinent to Applicant’s problem of using a plier-type tool for tagging animals) and further teach that a clearance between moving parts should be about 0.1mm in order to minimize wear (col. 5, lines 44-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and in view of Puro to have made a clearance of about 0.1mm between all surfaces of the clamp bush and the surrounding surfaces in order to minimize wear.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howe et al. (US 4,696,119) in view of Lefevre et al. (US 2018/0126517).
Regarding claim 8, Howe et al. fail to disclose what force is needed to move the animal tag applicator into a closed position.
Lefevre et al., in Applicant's field of plier-type gripping tools, teaches that a typical closing force from a user's hand of 100 N should be sufficient to cut a wire (¶[0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the applicator of Reggers et al. so that a closing force of 100 N or less is required to operate the device as this is a typical closing force sufficient to cut through stronger objects than tissue using pliers as taught by Lefevre et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas McEvoy whose telephone number is (571) 270-5034 and direct fax number is (571) 270-6034. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am – 6:00 pm.
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, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Elizabeth Houston at (571) 272-7134. 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/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.
/THOMAS MCEVOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771