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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 30, 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed February 14, 2024 are accepted.
Abstract
The Abstract filed February 14, 2024 is accepted.
Specification
The specification filed February 14, 2024 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 10 – 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamb et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0293801 A1) in view of Dinhofer (US 2,319,724).
With respect to claim 1, Lamb et al. discloses a blade (10; figures 1 - 3) for a measuring tape device (30), the blade comprising a first end (i.e. left end with hook 14); a second end configured to be operably coupled to a reel assembly of the measuring tape device (i.e. right end coupled to reel 18); a metallic strip of material extending between the first end and second end (primary tape rule 10, which may be steel, extends between the hook 14 and reel 18; figure 1; paragraph [0018]), the metallic strip (10) being cupped to define a first concave face (i.e. primary tape rule 10 has a concave face as shown); a reinforcement strip (12) cupped to define a second concave face (secondary tape rule 12 has a concave face as shown), the reinforcement strip being applied to a longitudinal centerline of a selected portion of the metallic strip (figure 1); and a lateral retention assembly (13) operably coupled to the metallic strip to retain the reinforcement strip laterally while enabling the reinforcement strip to move relative to the metallic strip in a longitudinal direction (edge portions 13 fold over the primary tape rule 10 providing for a relative sliding motion between the tape rules 10 and 12, which will be along the longitudinal direction; figures 1 - 3; paragraph [0010]).
Lamb fails to disclose the reinforcement strip being applied to a longitudinal centerline of a selected portion of the metallic strip such that the first concave face is directed toward the second concave face as recited in claim 1.
Dinhofer discloses a flexible tape (figure 1) comprising a blade (1) with a reinforcement strip (5; figures 1 and 4) being applied to a longitudinal centerline of a selected portion of the metallic strip (1; figures 1 and 4) such that the first concave face is directed toward the second concave face (the concave face 3 of metal tape body 1 is shown to face the concave face of plate 5; figure 4; page 1, column 1, lines 35-55) in order to add stiffness and materially increases the resistance of the tape to transverse buckling or folding (Dinhofer; page 1, column 1, lines 40-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lambs' blade so that the concave faces of the metallic strip and reinforcement strap are directed toward one another, as taught by Dinhofer, since this formation adds stiffness and materially increases the resistance of the tape to transverse buckling or folding (Dinhofer; page 1, column 1, lines 40-55).
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer sets forth a blade wherein the reinforcement strip (as modified by Dinhofer above) is affixed to the metallic strip at a fixed joint disposed at an end of the reinforcement strip that is opposite the end hook, and wherein the reinforcement strip is not affixed to the metallic strip at a terminus opposite the fixed joint (for example, a trailing edge of the reinforcement strip 12 is slidably affixed, at a slidably fixed joint, to the primary metallic strip 10, the trailing edge is opposite the hook 14; figures 1-3; paragraphs [0009], [0013]).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer teaches a blade wherein the terminus is spaced apart from the first end by a small distance (See Figure 3 of Lamb et al.), thus teaching the distance of less than about 36 inches.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer shows a blade wherein the fixed joint is located at the second end wherein the fixed joint is located at a second end of the reinforcement strip (a trailing edge of the reinforcement strip of the secondary tape rule 12 is slidably affixed at a slidably fixed joint to the metallic strip 10, the trailing edge is opposite the hook 14; figures 1 - 3; paragraphs [0009], [0013]).
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer discloses the blade wherein the fixed joint is spaced apart from the second end (a trailing edge of the reinforcement strip is slidably affixed at a slidably fixed joint to the primary metallic strip, the trailing edge is opposite the hook 14 and spaced from the end of tape rule 10 which is coupled to reel 18 as shown; figures 1-3; paragraphs [0009], [0013]).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer sets forth the blade as recited above, but fails to teach the lateral retention assembly being attached to the metallic strip via an adhesive. Lamb discloses that the side edges that fold over and define the lateral retention assembly may extend along the length of the secondary rule, and therefore would be positioned at leading and trailing edges of the secondary rule. Since Lamb discloses that one of the leading and trailing edges may be affixed to the primary rule via a fastener such as adhesive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lamb's lateral retention assembly which is a folded extension of the reinforcement strip to be adhesively affixed to the metallic strip because this would still provide the needed rigid affixing SO as to allow lengthwise relative motion of the tapes while rigidly affixing them together (Lamb; paragraph [0013]). Adhering the lateral retention assembly to the metallic strip is generally obvious, especially since Lamb discloses that using adhesive can be done in such a way so as to still allow relative sliding motion.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer teaches a blade wherein an arc height of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.04 and 0.75 times an arc height of the metallic strip, since the arched height of plate 5 is shown to be about ½ the arched height of the metallic strip (figure 4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer shows a blade wherein an arc width of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.2 and 1.0 times an arc width of the metallic strip, since the arched width of plate 5 is about the same as the arched width of the metallic strip (figure 4).
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer discloses a blade wherein a thickness of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.25 and 1.75 times a thickness of the metallic strip, since the thickness of the rules 10 and 12 are shown to be the same and so would be well within the range of 0.25 to 1.75 times (figure 2).
Referring to claim 14, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer sets forth a measuring tape device comprising a housing (16) having an aperture (See Figure 3 of Lamb et al.); a reel assembly (18) enclosed within the housing (Paragraph [0009]); and a blade (10) formed from a metallic strip of material (10) having a first end configured to extend from the housing through the aperture and a second end configured to be wound on the reel assembly (See Figure 3), the metallic strip (12) being cupped to define a first concave face (the concave face 3 of metal tape body 1 is shown to face the concave face of plate 5; figure 4; page 1, column 1, lines 35-55), wherein the blade (10) further comprises a reinforcement strip that is cupped to define a second concave face, the reinforcement strip (12) being applied to a longitudinal centerline of a selected portion of the metallic strip such that the first concave face is directed toward the second concave face (secondary tape rule 12 has a concave face as shown), and wherein the blade (10) further comprises a lateral retention assembly (13) operably coupled to the metallic strip to retain the reinforcement strip laterally while enabling the reinforcement strip to move relative to the metallic strip in a longitudinal direction (edge portions 13 fold over the primary tape rule 10 providing for a relative sliding motion between the tape rules 10 and 12, which will be along the longitudinal direction; figures 1 - 3; paragraph [0010]).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer teaches a device wherein the reinforcement strip (as modified by Dinhofer above) is affixed to the metallic strip (10) at a fixed joint disposed at an end of the reinforcement strip that is opposite the end hook, and wherein the reinforcement strip is not affixed to the metallic strip at a terminus opposite the fixed joint (for example, a trailing edge of the reinforcement strip 12 is slidably affixed, at a slidably fixed joint, to the primary metallic strip 10, the trailing edge is opposite the hook 14; figures 1-3; paragraphs [0009], [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer teaches a blade wherein the terminus is spaced apart from the first end by a small distance (See Figure 3 of Lamb et al.), thus teaching the distance of less than about 24 inches.
With regards to claim 20, the combination of Lamb et al. and Dinhofer teaches a blade wherein an arc height of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.04 and 0.75 times an arc height of the metallic strip, since the arched height of plate 5 is shown to be about ½ the arched height of the metallic strip (figure 4); wherein an arc width of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.2 and 1.0 times an arc width of the metallic strip, since the arched width of plate 5 is about the same as the arched width of the metallic strip (figure 4); and wherein a thickness of the reinforcement strip is between about 0.25 and 1.75 times a thickness of the metallic strip, since the thickness of the rules 10 and 12 are shown to be the same and so would be well within the range of 0.25 to 1.75 times (figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 – 9 and 17 – 19 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 6 – 9 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a blade wherein the lateral retention assembly comprises a polymeric overlay encapsulating the reinforcement strip to constrain lateral movement of the reinforcement strip; wherein the polymeric overlay is adhered to the metallic strip via an adhesion area that extends proximate to and spaced apart from lateral edges of the reinforcement strip and from the terminus; wherein a vent hole is disposed in the metallic strip proximate the terminus within a pocket defined by the polymeric overlay in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Claims 17 – 19 are allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest a device wherein the lateral retention assembly comprises a polymeric overlay encapsulating the reinforcement strip to constrain lateral movement of the reinforcement strip; and wherein a vent hole is disposed in the metallic strip proximate the terminus within a pocket defined by the polymeric overlay, or wherein the vent hole is disposed in the polymeric overlay proximate the terminus in combination with the remaining limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are considered relevant but fail to teach the combination as claimed:
Jernigan et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0077293A1)
Struble III (US Pub. No. 2024/0077294 A1)
Higgins (US 11,761,745)
Patrangenaru (US 11,236,983)
Rutty et al. (US 4,429,462)
Critelli et al. (US 7,490,414)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL whose telephone number is (571)272-2244. The examiner can normally be reached Mon -Thu, 8:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Laura E Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
February 24, 2026
/YARITZA GUADALUPE-MCCALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855