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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 2, “the biasing force” should read ---a biasing force---
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:
“biasing member” in claim 2 and in line 2 of claim 14.
“biasing members” in claim 9.
“force-transfer member” in line 2 of claim 14.
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.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the pushbutton locking assembly" in line 2. How does the “pushbutton locking assembly” in line 2 of claim 16 relate to the “locking assembly in line 8 of claim 1? Is there another locking assembly being claimed that differs from the locking assembly of claim 1? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goode (US2245270A).
Regarding claim 1, Goode discloses a tool suspender comprising. a first plate (12; Figures 1-7); a second plate (13); a gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) between the first plate (12) and the second plate (13) and comprising first and second jaws (1, 11) supported by the first and second plates (12, 13), the first jaw (1) movable between a first closed position and a first open position (Figures 2-3) and the second jaw (11) moveable between a second closed position and a second open position; and a locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) having a locked configuration (Figure 2) in which the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) prevents the first and second jaws (1, 11) from moving from their closed positions to their open positions and an unlocked configuration (Figure 3) in which the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) does not prevent the first and second jaws (1, 11) from moving from their closed positions to their open positions.
Regarding claim 2, Goode discloses wherein the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) comprises a biasing member (17; Figure 4) biasing the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) to the locked configuration.
Regarding claim 3, Goode discloses wherein the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) is operably connected to the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) such that, when the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) is in the unlocked configuration, the locking assembly (3, 3a) is slidable relative to the first and second plates (12, 13) from a retaining position (Figure 2) to a release position (Figure 3) to cause the first and second jaws (1, 11) of the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) to move from their respective closed positions to their respective open positions.
Regarding claim 4, Goode discloses wherein the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) is operably connected to the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) such that, when the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) is in the unlocked configuration, the locking assembly (3, 3a) is slidable relative to the first and second plates (12, 13) from the release position (Figure 3) to the retaining position (Figure 2) to cause the first and second jaws (1, 11) of the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) to move from their respective open positions to their respective closed positions.
Regarding claim 5, Goode discloses wherein the first and second plates (12, 13) define aligned handle-receiving slots (18; Figure 4), and wherein the first and second jaws (1, 11) of the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) are pivotable relative to the handle-receiving slots (18) between their respective open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 6, Goode discloses wherein the first and second jaws (1, 11) are outwardly pivoted relative to the handle-receiving slots (18) when in their respective open positions (Figure 3) and inwardly pivoted relative to the handle-receiving slots (18) when in their respective closed positions (Figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Goode discloses wherein the first and second jaws (1, 11) comprise respective gripping sections (upper curved surface of jaws 1, 11; Figure 7) sized and shaped to engage a handle (10; page 2, column 1, lines 65-74, loop of an article) when the handle (10) is positioned in the handle-receiving slots (18) and to move the handle (10) upwardly in the handle-receiving slots (18) when the first and second jaws (1, 11) move from the inwardly pivoted positions to the outwardly pivoted positions.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Unthank (US2327751A).
Regarding claim 1, Unthank discloses a tool suspender comprising. a first plate (10; Figures 1-3); a second plate (11); a gripping assembly (16-19) between the first plate (10) and the second plate (11) and comprising first and second jaws (16, 17) supported by the first and second plates (10, 11), the first jaw (16) movable between a first closed position and a first open position (Figures 1-2) and the second jaw (17) moveable between a second closed position and a second open position; and a locking assembly (27, 32, 35) having a locked configuration (Figure 1) in which the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) prevents the first and second jaws (16, 17) from moving from their closed positions to their open positions and an unlocked configuration (Figure 2) in which the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) does not prevent the first and second jaws (16, 17) from moving from their closed positions to their open positions.
Regarding claim 3, Unthank discloses wherein the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) is operably connected to the gripping assembly (16-19) such that, when the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) is in the unlocked configuration, the locking assembly (rod 27) is slidable relative to the first and second plates (10, 11) from a retaining position (Figure 1) to a release position (Figure 2) to cause the first and second jaws (16, 17) of the gripping assembly (16-19) to move from their respective closed positions to their respective open positions.
Regarding claim 4, Unthank discloses wherein the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) is operably connected to the gripping assembly (16-19) such that, when the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) is in the unlocked configuration, the locking assembly (rod 27) is slidable relative to the first and second plates (10, 11) from the release position (Figure 2) to the retaining position (Figure 1) to cause the first and second jaws (16, 17) of the gripping assembly (16-19) to move from their respective open positions to their respective closed positions.
Regarding claim 5, Unthank discloses wherein the first and second plates (10, 11) define aligned handle-receiving slots (slots between guiding horns 36; Figure 1), and wherein the first and second jaws (16, 17) of the gripping assembly (16-19) are pivotable relative to the handle-receiving slots between their respective open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 6, Unthank discloses wherein the first and second jaws (16, 17) are outwardly pivoted relative to the handle-receiving slots when in their respective open positions (Figure 2) and inwardly pivoted relative to the handle-receiving slots when in their respective closed positions (Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Unthank discloses wherein the first and second jaws (16, 17) comprise respective gripping sections (20, 21; Figure 1) sized and shaped to engage a handle (22) when the handle (10) is positioned in the handle-receiving slots and to move the handle (22) upwardly in the handle-receiving slots when the first and second jaws (16, 17) move from the inwardly pivoted positions to the outwardly pivoted positions.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode in view of Misson (US20090314197A1).
Regarding claim 8, Goode discloses the above tool suspender, but fails to teach wherein the gripping sections include teeth engageable with lower portions of the handle.
Misson teaches a similar tool suspender and further teaches wherein the gripping sections (e; Figure 1) a include teeth (¶0026-0028, concave tooth, peaks) engageable with lower portions of the handle (c). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool suspender of Goode to include the teeth as taught by Misson in order to better secure the handle and improve alignment of the handle with the gripping sections of the jaws.
Claim(s) 9-12, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goode in view of Conrad (US4179150A).
Regarding claim 9, Goode discloses the above tool suspender, but fails to teach wherein the gripping assembly comprises one or more biasing members biasing the first and second jaws to their respective closed positions.
Conrad teaches a similar tool suspender and further teaches wherein the gripping assembly (22, 22’, 24, 24’, 34, 36; Figure 4) comprises one or more biasing members (34, 36) biasing the first and second jaws (22, 22’) to their respective closed positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool suspender of Goode to include the gripping assembly biasing members as taught by Conrad in order to increase the clamping force of the jaws and prevent accidental slippage of the held article through the jaws.
Regarding claim 10, Goode discloses wherein the gripping assembly (1, 2, 11) further comprises a first jaw actuator (cams 6,7 of jaw 1 and shoulders 8,9 of sliding element 3; Figures 1-3) operably connecting the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) to the first jaw (1) and a second jaw actuator (cams 6,7 of jaw 11 and shoulders 8,9 of sliding element 3) operably connecting the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) to the second jaw (11).
Regarding claim 11, Goode discloses wherein the first jaw actuator (cams 6,7 of jaw 1 and shoulders 8,9 of sliding element 3) and the second jaw actuator (cams 6,7 of jaw 11 and shoulders 8,9 of sliding element 3) are directly connected to the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17; Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Goode discloses wherein the first jaw (1) and the second jaw (11) each comprise a pivot section (pin 2 of jaw 1; Figure 4), a connection section (upper left portion of jaw 1; upper right portion of jaw 11), and a gripping section (bottom end portion of jaws 1 and 11).
Regarding claim 14, Goode discloses wherein the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) comprises a pushbutton (3a; top unshaded part of 3; Figure 2), a biasing member (17; shaded parts of 3; page 1, column 2, line 54 – page 2, column 1, line 24), a force-transfer member (3; middle unshaded part of 3), and a blocker (two bottom shoulders and recess of sliding element 3 form a limiter with pin 14; bottom unshaded part of 3; page 2, column 1, lines 29-46), wherein the force-transfer member (3) connects the pushbutton and the blocker, wherein the biasing member biases the pushbutton (3a) in a first direction (upward; Figure 2) such that the biasing member biases the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) to the locked configuration.
Regarding claim 15, Goode discloses wherein the pushbutton (3a) is movable in a second direction (downward; Figure 3) opposite the first direction (upward) against the biasing force of the biasing member (17) to cause the force-transfer member (3) and the blocker (two bottom shoulders and recess of sliding element 3 form a limiter with pin 14; page 2, column 1, lines 29-46) to move in the second direction to the locking assembly (3, 3a, 5, 17) to the unlocked configuration.
Regarding claim 17, Goode discloses wherein the force-transfer member (3) is fixedly connected to the pushbutton (3a) and the blocker (Figures 2-3; page 1, column 2, line 54 – page 2, column 1, line 24; shaded areas can be soft rubber compression blocks to form an integral sliding part 3 that includes the pushbutton top unshaded part, force-transfer member middle unshaded part, and blocker bottom unshaded part).
Regarding claim 18, Goode discloses wherein the force-transfer member (3) is slidable in a slot (16) defined by the second plate (13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool suspender of Goode to duplicate the slot in the second plate of Goode to include a slot in the first plate in order to improve alignment of the force-transfer member and to simplify assembly.
Claim(s) 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unthank in view of Conrad.
Regarding claim 9, Unthank discloses the above tool suspender, but fails to teach wherein the gripping assembly comprises one or more biasing members biasing the first and second jaws to their respective closed positions.
Conrad teaches a similar tool suspender and further teaches wherein the gripping assembly (22, 22’, 24, 24’, 34, 36; Figure 4) comprises one or more biasing members (34, 36) biasing the first and second jaws (22, 22’) to their respective closed positions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tool suspender of Unthank to include the gripping assembly biasing members as taught by Conrad in order to increase the clamping force of the jaws and prevent accidental slippage of the held article through the jaws.
Regarding claim 10, Unthank discloses wherein the gripping assembly (16-19) further comprises a first jaw actuator (25; 25A; Figures 1-2 and 4-5) operably connecting the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) to the first jaw (16) and a second jaw actuator (26; 26A) operably connecting the locking assembly (27, 32, 35) to the second jaw (17).
Regarding claim 11, Unthank discloses wherein the first jaw actuator (25; 25A) and the second jaw actuator (26; 26A) are directly connected to the locking assembly (27, 32, 35).
Regarding claim 12, Unthank discloses wherein the first jaw (16) and the second jaw (17) each comprise a pivot section (18, 19; 18A, 19A; Figures 2 and 4), a connection section (23, 24; 23A, 24A), and a gripping section (20, 21; 20A, 21A).
Regarding claim 13, Unthank discloses wherein the pivot section (18; 18A) of the first jaw (16) is pivotally connected to the first and second plates (10, 11), the pivot section (19; 19A) of the second jaw (17) is pivotally connected to the first and second plates (10, 11), the connection section (24; 23A) of the first jaw (16) is pivotally connected to the first jaw actuator (25; 25A), and the connection section (23; 24A) of the second jaw (17) is pivotally connected to the second jaw actuator (26; 26A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 16 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest the entire combination of elements set forth including for disclosing wherein the blocker comprises a locking ring engageable with an inner edge of the second plate when the pushbutton locking assembly is in the locked configuration.
Goode is the closest prior art and further teaches wherein the blocker (two bottom shoulders and recess of sliding element 3 form a limiter with pin 14; bottom unshaded part of 3; page 2, column 1, lines 29-46) comprises a rib (15; Figure 6) engageable with an inner edge (groove 16) of the second plate (13) when the pushbutton locking assembly (3a, 3, 5, 17) is in the locked configuration, but fails to teach wherein the blocker comprises a locking ring engageable with an inner edge of the second plate when the pushbutton locking assembly is in the locked configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights