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 2/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the curvilinear portion lateral profile in contact with the instrument strings of Claim 10 liens 3-4, the curvilinear portion lateral profile being curvilinear with respect to the longitudinal plane of the plectrum of Claim 10 lines 3-4, the side profile of the curvilinear portion being symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis of Claim 10 lines 5-6, the downward and upward feathering of the side profile of the curvilinear portion of Claim 10 lines 5-6, the side profile being convex in relation to the sliding on the string of Claim 10 line 7, the side profile being concave in relation to the sliding on the string of Claim 10 line 7, the connecting portion for a thimble of Claim 11 lines 1-3, the curved side profile of the curvilinear portion being a sliding profile of the plectrum on the strings of the instrument of Claim 11 lines 4-5, the gripping ergonomics defined in the finger grip by the curvilinear profile of the plectrum of Claim 13 lines 1-2, the differentiated morphology on the two opposite sides of Claim 14 lines 1-2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 10 line 3 recites the phrasing “curvilinear portion”, and Claim 10 line 6 recites the phrasing “feathering”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With regards to Claim 10 and claims depending therefrom, lines 4-6 recite the limitation “a side profile of the curvilinear portion is without angular points and it is symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis, so as to have the same feathering both downwards and upwards”. It is unclear as to what “it” refers, particularly whether the side profile of the curvilinear portion is without angular points and is symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis, so as to have the same feathering both downwards and upwards, whether the side profile of the curvilinear portion is without angular points and the curvilinear portion is symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis, so as to have the same feathering both downwards and upwards, or whether another arrangement is intended. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the downward and upward feathering are positioned on the curvilinear portion (e.g., relative what portion of the plectrum is considered “downward” and which is “upward”, whether the feathering extends along the curvilinear portion to direct the side profile upwards and downwards the same amount, whether the feathering extends along the curvilinear portion side profile and being the same on two opposite sides of the side profile, etc.). Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrasing “the sliding on the string”. it is unclear as to how the side profile concavity or convexity is disposed and whether the sliding on the string intends a physical orientation (e.g., an orientation of the pick relative the string when the pick is sliding on the string), intends a stringed instrument playing technique, or another limitation is intended. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands these limitations such that the side profile of the curvilinear portion is without angular points and in side profile, the curvilinear portion extends in both an upward and downward direction, thereby forming a concave or a convex portion of the side profile. The applicant is encouraged to clarify the intended features and structure of the curvilinear portion and its side profile in the claim language.
With regards to Claim 11 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 11 line 4 recites the phrasing “the curved side profile of the curvilinear portion being a sliding profile of the plectrum on the strings of the instrument”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrasing “the curved side profile” in the claim language and it is unclear as to whether the side profile of the curvilinear portion is the same as the curved side profile of the curvilinear portion, or whether the curved side profile of the curvilinear portion intends a portion of the side profile which is curved, or another profile of the curvilinear portion. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how the curved side profile is arranged relative a sliding profile of the plectrum on the strings of the instrument (e.g., is the curved side profile a profile of the plectrum when viewed through the string when the plectrum is sliding on the string?). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that a curved portion of the side profile of the curvilinear portion contacts the strings of the instrument when the plectrum contacts the strings of the instrument. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the relationship between the curvilinear portion, its profile(s), and the portion contacting the strings of the instrument.
With regards to Claim 12 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 12 lines 2-3 recite the limitation “the thickening guaranteeing a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion even when the gripping or connecting portion is strained by the user”. It is unclear as to how the thickening guarantees dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion, particularly whether the existence of a thickening portion (e.g., a thicker portion) is sufficient to guarantee dimensional stability, or whether another aspect of the thickening is required to perform this function and achieve the result of dimensional stability. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands this limitation such that the existence of the thickening (i.e. a thicker portion in at least one profile) is sufficient to guarantee a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion even when the gripping or connecting portion is strained by the user. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language whether any additional structure or features are required of the thickening to perform the task of guaranteeing a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion.
With regards to Claim 13 and claims depending therefrom, Claim 13 line 2 recites the limitation “the thickening defines a gripping ergonomics, preferably also defined in the finger grip by the curvilinear profile of the plectrum”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the finger grip” in the claim language and it is unclear as to how the finger grip relates to the other structural portions of the claim. Furthermore, Claim 13 depends from Claim 12, which depends from Claim 11 which recites on lines 1-3 “the body is divided into an attachment portion meant to contact the strings of the instrument and a user’s gripping or connecting portion for a thimble”. Therefore, it is also unclear as to whether Claim 13 intends to require the body include a user’s gripping portion having an ergonomic grip or whether such gripping ergonomics is included in the connecting portion as well, and whether the ergonomic gripping defined in the finger grip is required for each embodiment of a user’s gripping and a connecting portion. For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the scope of Claim 13 such that the body has a user’s gripping, and the thickening is at the gripping and defines an ergonomic gripping portion for gripping by a user, The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the structure required by the claim and the relationship between structural elements of the plectrum.
With regards to Claim 14 and claim depending therefrom, Claim 14 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the thickening provides a differentiated morphology on the two opposite sides, by adapting to the gripping of the user’s fingers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the two opposite sides” in the claim language and it is unclear as to how the two opposite sides are determined (i.e. opposite what portion?). Furthermore, it is unclear as to what adapts to the gripping of the user’s fingers, and how such adaptation is effected (e.g., is it a property of the material that can cushion or adapt to the user’s fingers? Is it a pre-formed shape that conforms to a position of a user’s fingers?). For the purpose of examination, the examiner understands the scope of Claim 14 such that the thickening has different morphologies on two opposite sides thereof capable of enhancing a grip of a user’s fingers. The applicant is encouraged to clarify in the claim language the intended structure and features of the thickening,
Applications filed after March 15th 2013
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 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.
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.
(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.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zook (US 4,347,773).
With regards to Claim 10, Zook discloses a plectrum for string musical instruments (see column 1 lines 12-13), comprising a body [10] (see column 3 lines 35-38), the body [10] extending for a length along a longitudinal axis between a tip (comprising a distal end of body [10] at portion [26], see Figures 1 and 6) and a rear end (comprising a distal end of body [10] at portion [24], see Figure 1 ad 6) wherein the body [10] comprises at least one curvilinear portion (comprising the portion including sections [28,26], see column 4 lines 25-30 and Figures 2 and 6) whose lateral profile is in contact with the instrument strings and which is curvilinear with respect to a longitudinal plane of the plectrum (see column 4 lines 25-35), wherein a side profile of the curvilinear portion is without angular points (see Figures 1-3) and it is symmetrical with respect to the longitudinal axis (see Figure 1; the curvilinear portion is substantially symmetric with respect to a longitudinal axis of the body [10]), so as to have the same feathering both downwards and upwards, and the side profile can be either convex or concave in relation to the sliding on the string (see column 4 lines 30-35 and Figures 3 and 5).
With regards to Claim 11, Zook discloses the plectrum as discussed above with regards to Claim 10.
Zook further discloses the body is divided into an attachment portion [26] meant to contact the strings of the instrument (see column 4 lines 27-28 and Figure 6) and a user's gripping [24] or connecting portion for a thimble (see column 4 lines 25-27), the attachment portion [26] being at least partially defined by the curvilinear portion [26,28], the curved side profile of the curvilinear portion being a sliding profile of the plectrum on the strings of the instrument (see Figure 6).
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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zook (US 4,347,773) in view of Mizek (US 2007/0079685).
With regards to Claim 12, Zook discloses the plectrum as discussed above with regards to Claim 10.
Zook does not discloses the body has a thickening at the gripping or connecting portion, the thickening guaranteeing a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion even when the gripping or connecting portion is strained by the user.
Mizek teaches the body [20] has a thickening (comprising the thickening at portion [40], see Figures 1 and 2) at the gripping or connecting portion, the thickening guaranteeing a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion even when the gripping or connecting portion is strained by the user (see Abstract and paragraph 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body of Zook to have a thickening at the gripping or connecting portion, the thickening guaranteeing a dimensional stability of the curvilinear portion even when the gripping or connecting portion is strained by the user, as taught by Mizek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the gripping and tactile feedback of a user (see Mizek paragraph 7).
With regards to Claim 13, Zook and Mizek disclose the plectrum as discussed above with regards to Claim 12.
Zook does not disclose the thickening defines a gripping ergonomics, preferably also defined in the finger grip by the curvilinear profile of the plectrum.
Mizek teaches the thickening defines a gripping ergonomics (see paragraph 41), preferably also defined in the finger grip by the curvilinear profile of the plectrum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plectrum of Zook such that the thickening defines a gripping ergonomics, preferably also defined in the finger grip by the curvilinear profile of the plectrum, as taught by Mizek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve gripping capabilities while allowing for tactile feedback (see Mizek paragraph 7).
With regards to Claim 14, Zook and Mizek disclose the plectrum as discussed above with regards to Claim 13.
Zook does not disclose the thickening provides a differentiated morphology on the two opposite sides, by adapting to the gripping of the user's fingers.
Mizek teaches the thickening [40] provides a differentiated morphology on the two opposite sides, by adapting to the gripping of the user's fingers (see paragraph 45; the thickening [40] may be formed of a thermoplastic elastomer, silicone rubber, or similar material, which substantially allows for a better grip by a user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plectrum of Zook such that the thickening provides a differentiated morphology on the two opposite sides, by adapting to the gripping of the user's fingers, as taught by Mizek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for a suitable material to be used for the plectrum (see Mizek paragraph 45).
With regards to Claim 15, Zook and Mizek disclose the plectrum as discussed above with regards to Claim 14.
Zook does not disclose the body is made by injection molding and the thickening is at least partially made of a different material with respect to the rest of the body, by an over-molding technique.
Mizek teaches the body [20] is made by injection molding and the thickening is at least partially made of a different material with respect to the rest of the body, by an over-molding technique (see paragraphs 43-46; the examiner notes that the limitation the body is made by injection molding and the thickening is made by an over-molding technique are product-by-process limitations not given patentable weight in this product claim, but that the materials of the thickening [40] with respect to the remainder [30] of the body are capable of being formed by injection molding and an over-molding process).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plectrum of Zook such that the body is made by injection molding and the thickening is at least partially made of a different material with respect to the rest of the body, by an over-molding technique, as taught by Mizek. One would have been motivated to do so in order to form the body as a monolithic element (see Mizek paragraph 44) or achieve different musical tones (see Mizek paragraph 46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In addition to the prior art discussed in this action, the applicant is directed to form 892, and particularly the references Leneman (US 2012/0260788), which discloses at least a plectrum having a body with a tip and rear end and being substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal axis in plan view, the portion of the body contacting a stringed instrument’s strings having a twist, Whetstine (US 7,786,362), which discloses at least a plectrum having a body and a twisted portion for enhancing a user’s grip of the plectrum body, a portion of the twist extending in a direction below and a portion extending in a direction above the body of the plectrum, Huebner (DE 202004000875), which discloses at least a plectrum having a body with a tip and rear end and being substantially symmetrical about a longitudinal axis in plan view, the portion of the body contacting a stringed instrument’s strings having a twist, and Hakoune (FR 2899713), which discloses at least a plectrum including a body having a twisted profile along a curve of the portion striking the strings of a stringed instrument, the twisted profile including a portion twisting upwards and a portion twisting downwards relative a middle of the plectrum body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN KRYUKOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-3761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m. - 4p.m.
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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at 5712727044. 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.
/ERIN KRYUKOVA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875