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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the guide bump is provided between the blocking structure and the receiving structure, the blocking structure, guide bump, and receiving structure are all provided on the lower cover” should be the guide bump is provided between the blocking structure and the receiving structure; the blocking structure, guide bump, and receiving structure are all provided on the lower cover”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a receiving portion in claim 4; a side end portion in claim 4; first flipping connection portion in claim 5; second flipping connection portion in claim 5; a vertical protection portion in Claim 6; a horizontal protection portion in claim 6; a limit end portion in claim 6; a blade installation portion in claim 7; a first flipping installation portion in claim 7; and a second flipping installation portion in Claim 7.
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 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 1-7 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 1, “the upper cover and the lower cover are covered together by a rotating a hinge,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “covered together” means. Is Applicant claiming that the upper cover and the lower cover are connected together? The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “an upper end of the blade protection cover is flipped and connected to the upper cover through the torsion spring;” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being claimed by the term “flipped” – this term is used twice in the claim. The claims are directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. Is Applicant claiming that the blade protection cover is connected by a hinge and capable of moving from one position to another? This structure is not claimed. “Flipped” appears to be a static position after something has moved. The claims were interpreted as best understood Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, Applicant uses the term “it” twice. It is unclear what “it” is referring to in both cases. The claims were examined a best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “and the blocking structure blocks the blade protection cover to prevent it from flipping,” is indefinite. It is unclear what “preventing it from flipping” requires as the claims are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the device an not method claims. The claims were interpreted as the blade protection cover does not move. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “the upper guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the upper cover, and the lower guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the lower cover;” is indefinite. It is unclear what “symmetrically arranged” means. The upper guiding seat, itself, is symmetrically arranged, and the lower guiding seat, itself, is separately symmetrically arranged. Symmetrically arranged with regard to what? Does applicant intend to claim the upper guiding seat and the lower guiding seat are symmetrically arranged to each other or is Applicant implicitly claiming two upper guiding seats symmetrically arranged to each other and two lower guiding seat symmetrically arranged to each other.
In re Claim 1, “when the upper cover rotates and covers on the lower cover, left and right positioning is achieved by inserting and overlapping between the upper guiding seat and the lower guiding seat so as avoid shaking;” is indefinite. The Examiner notes that the claims are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the device. The claims are not method claims directed to the use of the device. It is unclear what is avoiding shaking. Is the insertion preventing the user from shaking? Is the insertion preventing shaking of the covers or the blade or the workpiece? It is unclear what is being prevented from shaking. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 1, “at the same time, the blade protection cover leaves the blocking structure, slides along the guide bump and flips until it lands on the receiving structure,” is indefinite. The claims are directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. It is unclear how “time” relates to the structure. The Examiner suggests claiming the structure of the device and not the method of use. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 2, “when the upper cover is opened and closed to a certain angle,” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being claimed. Is Applicant claiming a range of angles or one angle. The claims appear to requiring both opening and closing (i.e. movement) but only one angle (a certain angle). How can one angle include movement in the direction of both open and closed? The claims are apparatus claims directed to the structure of the device and not the method of use. The Examiner suggests claiming the structure of the device and not the method of use. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 3, “configured to be an inclined state,” is indefinite. It is unclear what is an “inclined state.” As best understood, the upper end of the guide bump does not have different states. Is Applicant claiming an upper end of the guide bump has an inclined surface? Or is Applicant claiming some other structural feature of the device? This is unclear. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 4, “an upper end of the receiving portion is configured to be an inclined state” is indefinite. As best understood, the upper end of the receiving portion does not have different states. Is Applicant claiming an upper end of the receiving portion has an inclined surface? Or is Applicant claiming some other structural feature of the device? This is unclear. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 6, “when the upper cover is opened and closed at a certain angle, the limit end portion contacts and abuts against the blocking limit portion,” is indefinite. It is unclear what is being claimed as the claims are apparatus claims and not method claims. The claim appears to required “opening” and “closing” across a range of angles, but only one angle is claimed (a certain angle). It is unclear what is a certain angle. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7,243,826 to Darst in view of US 8,708,149 to Hawry.
In re Claim 1, Darst teaches a medicine cutter with a blade protection and positioning structure (see Figs. 9-10c), comprising an upper cover (see Figs. 9-10c, #570), a lower cover (see Figs. 9-10c, #520), a blade protection cover (see Figs. 9-10c, #540), a blade (see Figs. 9-10c, #550), a blocking structure (see Figs. 9-10c, #530), a guide bump (see Figs. 9-10c, #592) a receiving structure (#525);
the upper cover and the lower cover are covered together by a rotating a hinge (see Figs. 9-10c, #590), the blade protection cover is located on one side of the blade (portions of the blade cover are located on one side of the blade); the blade protection cover is provided with a torsion spring (see Figs. 9-10c, #591), an upper end of the blade protection cover is flipped and connected to the upper cover through the torsion spring (see Figs. 9-10c, the upper end of #540 is connected to spring #591);
the guide bump is provided between the blocking structure and the receiving structure (see Fig. 10A-C, portions of #592 are between #530 and #525 – see also Fig. 9), the blocking structure, guide bump, and receiving structure are all provided on the lower cover (see Figs. 9-10c, #592/530/525);
when the upper cover is opened, the blade protection cover is returned to an original position under a force of the torsion spring (see Fig. 10a), and the blocking structure blocks the blade protection cover to prevent it from flipping (see Figs. 9-10c, #952 prevents #540 from moving);
when the upper cover rotates and covers on the lower cover, the blade protection cover leaves the blocking structure, slides along the guide bump and flips until it lands on the receiving structure (see Figs. 10A-C).
Darst does not teach a guide structure, the guide structure comprises an upper guiding seat and a lower guiding seat; the upper guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the upper cover, and the lower guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the lower cover; the upper guiding seat is inserted into the lower guiding seat;
when the upper cover rotates and covers on the lower cover, left and right positioning is achieved by inserting and overlapping between the upper guiding seat and the lower guiding seat so as avoid shaking.
However, Hawry teaches that it is known in the pivoting art to provide and a guide structure (see Hawry, Fig. 1, 150’’/150’’/150’/150’), the guide structure comprises an upper guiding seat (see Hawry, Fig. 1, #150’’) and a lower guiding seat (see Hawry, Fig. 1, #150’); the upper guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the upper cover (see Hawry, Fig. 1 both #150’’/150’’ structures in 160), and the lower guiding seat is symmetrically arranged in the lower cover (see Hawry, Fig. 1, both #150’/150’ in #120); the upper guiding seat is inserted into the lower guiding seat (see Hawry, e.g., Fig. 3);
when the upper cover rotates and covers on the lower cover, left and right positioning is achieved by inserting and overlapping between the upper guiding seat and the lower guiding seat so as avoid shaking (see Hawry, Figs. 1-3).
Although Darst and Hawry are in different fields, both are pivoting structures foin the tablet art, and a teaching of maintaining a secure engagement between pivoting structures will be equally applicable in both areas. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al. No. 04-1350, 550 U.S. _____(2007) slip op at 13, which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives … can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability” (emphasis added). Hawry clearly describes the design incentives of having locking posts in order to a secure engagement between pivoting structure (see Hawry, Col. 1, ll. 59-65). Adding these features to other pivoting structures would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date.
It is to be noted that claims 2-7 have not been rejected over prior art. It may or may not be readable over the prior art but allowability cannot be determined at this time in view of the issues under 35 USC § 112.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724