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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13, 16, 18, and 19 are amended.
Claim 3 is canceled
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 1, 2, 4-12 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 1 recites “each tab is received in one aperture”. It is unclear if all the tabs are received in one aperture or each tab is received in respective aperture. The claim will be interpreted as the latter, however further clarification and correction are required. All the dependent claims inherit the same issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, and 7-12is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards (US 4896771) in view of Ito (7121405) and Oto (US 6308944)
Regarding claim 1-2, and 4 Edwards discloses, A container (10) comprising: a base including base walls (See annotated fig. below) and a cavity (See annotated fig. below) defined by the base walls; a receptacle on one of the base walls; and a retainer (See annotated fig. below; 26) coupled to the receptacle and configured to support a plurality of tools within the cavity, the base being sized to receive only a single retainer (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
330
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Edward does not disclose, the receptacle include two apertures, a retainer selectively coupled to the receptacle , and the retainer including two tabs wherein each tab is received in one aperture and wherein the base includes a pocket formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the two tabs are received in the pocket.
Ito discloses a base comprising a receptacle (fig. 28; A), a shaft (103) that is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection (Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36) and wherein the receptacle includes two apertures (Fig. 31; aperture through which 108 enters), wherein the retainer includes two tabs (108), wherein each tab is received in one aperture, the base includes a pocket (106) formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the two tabs are received in the pocket (Col. 19; lines 18-21; Fig. 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edwards to incorporate the retainer is selectively coupled to the receptacle by a snap-fit connection, and wherein the receptacle includes two apertures, and wherein the retainer includes two tabs, wherein each tab is received in one aperture, and wherein the base includes a pocket formed on the outer surface, and wherein portions of the two tabs are received in the pocket as taught by Ito as it allows for easier attachment between the retainer and the receptacle since its can be easily pushed to be snapped into locked or unlocked positioned while also allowing for easy replacement if any part is damaged.
In the event, Ito does not disclose, each tab is received in each respective aperture, Oto discloses a base wherein, each tab (71a,b) is received in respective aperture (2; Fig. 1, 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edwards to have apertures for each respective tabs as taught by Oto for the purpose of improving securement between the shaft and the base, since having individual aperture for each tab would require more effort for removal of the spindle from the base.
Regarding claim 5 Edwards does not disclose, a locating feature on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer.
Ito discloses a locating feature (See annotated fig. below) on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edwards to incorporate a locating feature on the one of the base walls to engage the retainer as taught by Ito as it would help align the retainer when snapping retaining to the base while also locking the retainer at a predetermined level.
PNG
media_image2.png
312
543
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Edwards as modified discloses, wherein the locating feature includes a bridge separating the two apertures (Fig. 31; bridge between apertures through which 108 pass through), and wherein the retainer includes a stand (See annotated fig. below) positioned between the two tabs and engaging the bridge.
PNG
media_image3.png
440
308
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Edwards as modified discloses, a lid (14) movably coupled to the base to selectively enclose the cavity (lid coupled to body via hinge 40).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Edwards as modified discloses, the retainer includes a top portion that contacts the lid when the lid is in a closed position (Fig. 2) and the lid includes a pocket shaped to receive the top portion (Fig. 2; element 36).
Regarding claim 11, Edwards does not disclose, the retainer includes a base portion, an insert portion extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle
Ito discloses, the retainer includes a base portion, an insert portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle(Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edwards to incorporate the retainer mechanism includes a base portion, an insert portion extending from the base portion in a first direction, and a main body portion extending from the base portion in a second direction that is opposite the first direction, wherein the insert portion is releasably coupled to the receptacle as taught by Ito as it can be easily pushed to be snapped into locked or unlocked positioned.
The limitation “wherein the main body portion is configured to receive the plurality of tools” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, Edwards as modified has a spindle that he capable of receive the plurality of tools.
Regarding claim 12, Edwards a discloses a retainer.
The limitation “the retainer is configured to support up to ten oscillating multi tool blades.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim. Herein, the retainer of Edwards is considered to be capable of support up to ten oscillating multi tool blades.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Ito (7121405) in view of Normans (US D711973).
Regarding claim 18, Ito discloses, A retainer (103) configured to be secured within a container (Fig. 27) , the retainer comprising: a base portion (See annotated fig. below) along a first direction ;an elongated body (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion; and an insert portion (See annotated fig. below) extending from the base portion and including a plurality of tabs (108) extending from the base portion along a second direction opposite the first direction, the plurality of tabs configured to extend through a wall of the container and form a snap-fit connection (Fig. 31-36; Col. 19; lines 34-36) with the retainer, each tab having a stop (109) extending normally from an end of the tab, the stops configured to bear against an outer surface of the wall of the container (Fig. 34-35).
However, Ito discloses a singular leg (107)all around, fails to disclose, a set of legs extending from the base portion along the second direction.
Norman discloses a retainer comprising two legs (See annotated fig. below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edwards to incorporate two legs as taught by Norman for the purpose of saving material and cost by having separate legs made by removal of material.
PNG
media_image4.png
359
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The limitation “configured to receive a stack of oscillating multi tool blades, and the set of legs configured to bear against an inner surface of the wall of the container.” is considered to be intended use. Examiner asserts that the recitation of intended use or purpose of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Ito discloses, wherein the set of legs is positioned radially outwardly of the plurality of tabs (107 is outward of 108).
Regarding claim 20, Ito disclose, a stand (See annotated fig. below) positioned between the plurality of tabs (108) and configured to bear against a portion of the container (Fig. 33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-17 are allowed.
Claim 6 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argument with regards to Edward failing to disclose a spindle selectively coupled to the base is not persuasive as this feature is disclosed by Ito. The applicant further argues that, the combination of Edwards and Ito fails to disclose, each tab is received in respective aperture. Firstly, the prior art of Ito does not appear to disclose all tabs are received in one aperture as the applicant alleges. The office action now incorporated an alternative rejection that teaches that it is known to have individual aperture for individual tabs.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 13 as amended is considered and found persuasive. The rejection of claim 13 has been withdrawn.
Applicants argument with regards to claim 18 is considered but not persuasive. Once Ito is modified in view of Norman, Ito would have legs that extend in the opposite direction of the elongated body. There are parts of the leg that are in the opposites direction of the body as such it can be considered that the legs do extend in the second direction as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJIDUL ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7670. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 -5:00.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/SANJIDUL ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights