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 .
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because the “convex lens-like structure”, while depicted in Fig. 4, lacks a reference numeral. Please provide a reference numeral for this feature consistent with claim 8. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the tab set including a second section” introduces a “second section” without ever introducing a “first section”. It is unclear if the claimed “second section” is intended to be the first section.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the limitation “the third section” has no antecedent basis, as claim 1, from which claims 9 and 10 depend, never introduces a third section.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malacheski (US 4222171) “Malacheski”, in view of Kim (KR 20150061817) “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Malacheski discloses an instrument for solving problems of geometry, the instrument (Fig. 1; 10) comprising:
a primary unit (11) including a plurality of outer edges (104, 105) and an inner edge (edge of 13) defining a hollow space (13);
a secondary unit (12) rotatably coupled to the hollow space (13) of the primary unit (11), and a bar (39) defining a gap (40)
a tab set (42) slidably disposed within the gap (40) of the secondary unit (12), the tab set (42) including a second section (93) having a vernier scale (89, 94) corresponding to scale markings (92) wherein the inner edge (edge of 13) of the primary unit is configured to sit flush (Fig. 3) over a peripheral edge (15) of the secondary unit (130).
Malacheski does not disclose a ring portion and a solid portion defining a solid edge that separates the solid portion from the ring portion, the solid edge being parallel to a diameter;
Kim teaches a ring portion and a solid portion defining a solid edge that separates the solid portion from the ring portion, the solid edge being parallel to a diameter (see labelled excerpt below from Kim; Fig. 2a);
PNG
media_image1.png
190
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Kim’s ring portion, solid portion, and solid edge in Malacheski’s rotatable secondary unit with sliding tab set, providing a multifunctional instrument capable of solving geometrical problems with greater accuracy and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of outer edges (104, 105) of the primary unit (11) include a plurality of markings (106, 107) corresponding to different units of length or angle.
Regarding claim 3, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the secondary unit (12) is coupled to the primary unit (11) via a dovetail joint (26 and 23).
Regarding claim 4, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the secondary unit (12) resides between a drawing surface (19) and the inner edge (edge of 13) of the primary unit (11).
Regarding claim 5, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the inner edge (edge of 13) of the primary unit (11) is provided with a clockwise as well as an anticlockwise angular scale (101).
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Regarding claim 7, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1.
Malacheski does not disclose the solid portion includes a rotating means.
Kim teaches the solid portion includes a rotating means (see labelled excerpt below from Kim; Fig. 2a).
PNG
media_image2.png
150
307
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kim’s solid portion including a rotating means in Malacheski’s rotatable secondary unit, providing an easier way to rotate Malacheski’s secondary unit.
Regarding claim 9, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third section (85) includes a tuning mechanism (“threaded insert”) to enable the user to fine tune a position of the tab set (42) with respect to the bar (39).
Regarding claim 10, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the third section (85) includes a locking mechanism (52) to restrict the movement (Fig. 9) of the tab set (42) with respect to the secondary unit (12).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malacheski and Kim, in view of Hills (US 4757616) “Hills”.
Regarding claim 8, Malacheski discloses the instrument (10) as claimed in claim 1, and the second section (93) of the tab set (42).
Malacheski nor Kim disclose a convex lens-like structure.
Hills teaches a convex lens-like structure (23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hills’ convex lens-like structure on Malacheski’s tab set, making it easier to see Malacheski’s scale and collect more accurate measurements.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights