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 .
Examiner’s Comment
For ease of examination, the item numbers in the claims have been removed within this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, & 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical errors, missing transition phrases.
For claim 1, line 1, suggest amending to “A tape cutter,” to differentiate the claim preamble from the body.
For claim 1, line 3, suggest amending to “configured to be able to cut the released tape (10) by
For claim 2, line 4, suggest amending to “wherein a locking protrusion…”.
For claim 2, line 7, suggest amending to “configured so when a force is…”.
For claim 4, line 2, suggest amending to “[[a]] the rear”, as rear is understood by the Examiner to be the same ‘rear’ (of the cutter body) cited in claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: [a taping guide] “configured to rotate forward after holding”.
The phrase ‘after holding’ is indefinite, as there is no structural support within claim 1 because no configuration or structural element for a means for holding was cited in claim 1.
However, a holding step is cited in claim 3, “wherein the holding unit comprises a holder… configured for elastic holding”.
It should be considered to merge these elements into the same claim.
Patentability of an apparatus claim is based on what the apparatus structure is, not what it does.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 will be examined as written, with the understanding that ‘the (taping guide) is configured to rotate forward after a ‘holding unit comprising a holder’ would elastically hold (the tape)’.
Claims 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for generally not providing enough clarity for relationships between many of the components within the claim. In several elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, a lack of description leads to a lack of clarity for which component is being cited; it can be unclear which component is being referred to. For example, it is unclear if the “front side” on lines 4-5 refers to ‘a front side of the cutter body’ or ‘a front side of the taping guide’.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 1 will be examined by the following claim as understood by the Examiner, providing additional description for clarity in light of the disclosure and the full claim set. These specific changes are suggestions, not requirements, for avoiding indefiniteness; there can be many alternatives that can provide the needed clarity to claim 1. This was NOT made as an official Examiner’s Amendment, due to time limitations.
A tape cutter, comprising
a cutter body configured to release rolled tape accommodated therein to
configured to be able to cut the released tape by having a blade, wherein the cutter body comprises a taping guide disposed downward at a front side (of the cutter body) adjacent to the release hole,
(wherein the taping guide is) configured to make the tape be released with a non-adhesive surface of the tape in contact with a rear (of the taping guide) thereof, and
(the taping guide) configured to rotate forward after holding (the released tape).
Claims 2-5 are indefinite, as they are dependent to claim 1.
Claim 3 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the ‘end portion’ in line 1 refers to a portion of the holding unit or the holder, and which portion.
For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 3, line 1, will be examined as an ‘end portion’ (of the holder, in the direction of the release hole).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathi (US20100193539A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A tape cutter comprising a cutter body configured to release rolled tape accommodated therein to an outside through a release hole formed on a bottom thereof and configured to be able to cut the released tape by having a blade, wherein the cutter body comprises a taping guide disposed downward at a front side adjacent to the release hole, configured to make the tape be released with a non-adhesive surface of the tape in contact with a rear thereof, and configured to rotate forward after holding.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Fathi teaches a tape cutter (Fig. 9) comprising a cutter body (Fig. 9, enclosure/cover body item 270) configured to release rolled tape (Fig. 9, tape roll item 204 and released tape items 234) accommodated therein to pass outside of the cutter body through a release hole (Fig. 9, space between lower stopper item 249 and cutting edge item 257) formed on a bottom cutter body surface thereof.
* As worded in the claim set, the elements “rolled tape (10)” and “released tape (10)” are not a positively recited elements, they are the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed, and does not impart patentability to the claim. The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115.
The terms of the claim set such as ‘bottom’, ‘rear’, ‘front’, ‘downward’, ‘forward’, etc. are all variable terms that can be changed by changing the orientation of the tape dispenser/cutter apparatus. Fathi is understood to teach these claim terms through Figure 9 when the surface to which tape is applied (Fig. 9, item 200) is a horizontal surface such as the floor.*
While the tape roll in Fathi Figure 9 is not completely accommodated within the cover body (for ease of hand-carrying [0065] or perhaps to show the amount of tape remaining on the roll), it would have been prima facie obvious that the cover could be modified to fully encompass the tape roll, such as the Fathi embodiments taught in Figures 5 and 6.
Fathi teaches cutter body is configured to be able to cut the released tape by having a blade (Fig. 9, item 257), wherein the cutter body comprises a taping application guide roller (Fig. 9, item 241) disposed downward at a front side of the cutter body adjacent to the release hole, wherein the taping guide is configured to make the tape be released with a non-adhesive surface of the tape in contact with a rear of the taping guide thereof (see Fig. 9, items 234 & 241), and the taping guide configured to rotate forward [0065] after holding the released tape.
As worded in the claim 1, the element “holding” (the released tape) is not a positively recited element. It is an intended use of the tape cutter apparatus, and the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claim. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2115.
While ‘after holding’ is indefinite, as there is no structural support within apparatus claim 1, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, Fathi is understood to teach this process step as written.
Fathi teaches a set of locking rollers (Fig. 9, items 210, 230, 243) are configured to lock the released tape in place within the dispenser when a (manual) application pressure is not being applied [0063]. The elastic force of the sprung arm (Fig. 9, item 247) and spring member (Fig. 9, item 252) hold the rollers in their tape locking positions [0063-0065]. When the tape dispenser/cutter is in its intended operation by manual application of pressure, or ‘after holding’, the locking rollers are moved away from the released tape path, and the tape can rotate forward (See dotted line configuration of Fig. 9).
2. The tape cutter of claim 1, wherein the taping guide comprises a rotary shaft disposed in a width direction inside the cutter body, and a taping guide member coupled to rotate with the rotary shaft and disposed downward, a locking protrusion protruding in a direction in which the locking protrusion does not interfere with rotation of the taping guide member is formed on the rotary shaft, and when a force that rotates forward the taping guide member is applied, the locking protrusion is elastically locked, and then when a force over a predetermined level is applied, the locking protrusion is unlocked.
With respect to claim 2, Fathi teaches the taping guide comprises a rotary shaft disposed in a width direction inside the cutter body, which is a pivot axis of the mounting roller (Fig. 9, item 218).
Fathi teaches a taping guide member (items 244, 241) coupled to rotate with the rotary shaft and disposed downward in a distal direction from the rotary shaft [0063].
Fathi teaches a bar or bracket protruding from the rotary shaft (Fig. 9, item 218) and extending to the second locking roller (Fig. 9, item 230; [0063]) in a direction in which the locking protrusion does not interfere with rotation of the taping guide member [0065].
The claim 2 elements of “when a force that rotates forward the taping guide member is applied, the locking protrusion is elastically locked, and then when a force over a predetermined level is applied, the locking protrusion is unlocked” are intended uses of the apparatus, not structural elements of the apparatus, and are not patentable subject matter, as discussed with elements of claim 1.
However, Fathi teaches when a force that rotates forward the taping guide member is applied, the locking protrusion is elastically locked [0064], and then when a force over a predetermined level is applied, the locking protrusion is unlocked [0065].
3. The tape cutter of claim 2, wherein the cutter body comprises a holding unit therein configured to elastically lock the locking protrusion, and wherein the holding unit comprises a holder disposed such that an end portion thereof is positioned over an end portion of the locking protrusion and configured for elastic holding.
With respect to claim 3, Fathi teaches the cutter body comprises a holding unit therein configured to elastically lock the locking protrusion, and wherein the holding unit comprises a holder disposed such that an end portion (of the holder, in the direction of the release hole) thereof is positioned over an end portion of the locking protrusion (Fig. 9, see the arm extending from mounting roller axis item 218 to locking roller item 230) and configured for elastic holding [0064].
4. The tape cutter of claim 3, wherein a bottom of the end portion of the holding unit is configured to be inclined upward toward a rear.
With respect to claim 4, Fathi teaches the bottoms of the end portions (Fig. 9, items 244 and bottom of item 247) of the holding unit are configured to be inclined upward toward a rear end closest to the release hole.
5. The tape cutter of claim 1, wherein the taping guide is returned to an initial position by elasticity after being rotated forward.
With respect to claim 5, Fathi teaches the taping guide is returned to an initial position by the elasticity of a sprung arm (Fig. 9, item 247) after being rotated forward [0063-0064].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure – Furukawa (JPH10330021A), (Figs. 1 & 2; [Claim 1]); and Stahl (EP1028078A2), (Fig. 5; [Claims 1-5]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748