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 § 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.
Claim 1-3 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a tip” in line 9 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the same “any tip” recited in line 7 or a different tip. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends to recite the limitation “the tip” in line 9 corresponding to the positive recitation of “any tip” in line 7.
Claims 2-3 are rejected because they depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer, Foreign Patent Document, GB190909580 in view of Walde, US5934721.
Regarding independent claim 1, Fischer discloses a modular pair of tongs (Fig. 2), comprising: a first arm and a second arm (first and second arms are portion of a holding knife, and portion of a holding fork, Fig. 2) connected by a hinge (curved portion of a, Fig. 2), the hinge having a spring or other force applying mechanism (a, Fig. 2) biasing the hinge towards a maximum angle of extension (Page 1, lines 5-7), and the first arm and second arm each terminating in two or more grasping fingers (b1, Fig. 2), each grasping finger being biased away from an axis of that arm (b1, Fig. 2; Page 1, lines 10-14, 26-29); a grasping finger lock on each arm (d, Fig. 2; Page 1, lines 26-29), which, when retracted, permits the two or more grasping fingers of that arm to rest away from the axis of that arm and to release any tip being grasped by the grasping fingers (Page 1, lines 10-13), and, when extended, forces the two or more grasping fingers of that arm towards the axis of that arm to enclose a tip between them (Page 1, lines 13, 17-18);
Fischer does not disclose a hinge lock, such that if the pair of tongs is closed and the hinge lock is retracted, the hinge will not be able to open.
However, Walde teaches a modular pair of tongs having a hinge lock (16, 17, 18, 22, Fig. 3), such that if the pair of tongs is closed and the hinge lock is retracted, the hinge will not be able to open (bolt 18 when retracted will not allow the hinge 12 to open, Fig. 3; Column 4, lines 60-62.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Fischer and Walde to have a pair of modular tongs with a hinge lock in order to secure the tongs in the closed position, “having a smaller degree of separation” for user comfort and storage (Column 4, lines 45-62; Walde). One would have been motivated to make this modification “to accommodate the size of the user’s hand or the size of the object being grilled” (Column 2, lines 37-42; Walde).
Regarding claim 2, modified Fischer teaches the limitations of claim 1, and a modular pair of tongs.
Fischer does not disclose a tightening bolt, wherein the tightening bolt, when rotated, reduces a force necessary to overcome the spring or other force- applying mechanism biasing the hinge towards the maximum angle of extension.
However, Walde teaches a modular pair of tongs having a tightening bolt (17, Fig. 10), wherein the tightening bolt, when rotated, reduces a force necessary to overcome the spring or other force- applying mechanism biasing the hinge towards the maximum angle of extension (Column 4, lines 45-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Fischer and Walde to have a pair of modular tongs with a tightening bolt in order to secure the tongs in an optimal position, “having a smaller degree of separation” for user comfort and storage (Column 4, lines 45-62; Walde). One would have been motivated to make this modification “to accommodate the size of the user’s hand or the size of the object being grilled” (Column 2, lines 37-42; Walde).
Regarding claim 3, modified Fischer teaches the limitations of claim 2, and a modular pair of tongs.
Fischer does not disclose wherein the tightening bolt locks the hinge in a partially open position having an angle less than the maximum angle of extension.
However, Walde teaches a modular pair of tongs, wherein the tightening bolt locks the hinge in a partially open position having an angle less than the maximum angle of extension (Column 4, lines 45-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Fischer and Walde to have a pair of modular tongs with a tightening bolt that locks the hinge in a partially open position in order to secure the tongs in an optimal position, “having a smaller degree of separation” for user comfort and storage (Column 4, lines 45-62; Walde). One would have been motivated to make this modification “to accommodate the size of the user’s hand or the size of the object being grilled” (Column 2, lines 37-42; Walde).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights