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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/14/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 13-14, line 1, “a length” is read as “the length”; in line 2, “a circumference” is read as “the circumference”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
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:
Claims 13-14 recite “the dowel has a length of about 3 inches to about 8 inches, and a circumference of about 0.5 inches to about 4 inches”, which is not described in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-14 recite “the dowel has a length of about 3 inches to about 8 inches, and a circumference of about 0.5 inches to about 4 inches”, which is not described in the specification, and the drawings do not clearly show the limitation. Therefore, claims 13-14 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-17 and 10-14 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “smooth transitions in direction and angles and without sudden changes in direction or sharp angles”, it is unclear how to define “smooth transitions”, “sudden changes in direction”, “sharp angles” as the specification and the claims do not define which angle to be considered “sudden changes in direction”, “sharp angles”, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 13, upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger (US 3087280).
Regarding claim 1, Seliger teaches a tool (fig. 1) comprising:
a dowel (fig. 1, base 10), the dowel comprising a first end and a second end (fig. 2); the dowel having a length and circumference;
a first loop (fig. 1, a first element 14) extending from the first end, the first loop having a generally smooth shape (fig. 1, portion 20), wherein the generally smooth shape is generally linear or curved with smooth transitions in direction and angles without sudden changes in direction or sharp angles (fig. 1, portion 20 is linear), except for a first irregular portion (fig. 1, portion 16 extending to the base 10) where the first loop terminates at the first end (fig. 1) and that first irregular portion has an irregular shape (fig. 1, coil shape), the first loop is bent in a first direction away from a longitudinal direction of the dowel (fig. 1), the first irregular portion abuts the first end (fig. 1, portion 24 of the irregular portion abuts the base 10) and wherein the first irregular portion generally has sudden changes in direction and/or sharp angles (fig. 1);
a second loop (fig. 1, a second element 14) extending from the first end and adjacent to the first loop (fig. 1), the second loop having a generally smooth shape (fig. 1, portion 20 is linear) except for a second irregular portion (fig. 1, portion 16 extending to the base 10) where the second loop terminates at the first end (fig. 1) and that second irregular portion has an irregular shape (fig. 1, coil shape), the second loop is bent in a second direction away from the longitudinal direction of the dowel (fig. 1), wherein the second loop is basically a mirror image shape of the first loop (fig. 1); and wherein the first irregular portion and the second irregular portion are sawtooth or zig zag shape (see fig. 2), and at least two sawtooth portions or two zig zags of the first irregular portion overlap with at least two sawtooth portions or two zig zags of the second irregular portion (figs. 1-2, there are overlapped portions between two adjacent portions 16; further, column 1, line 69 to column 2, lines 1-3, the portion 14 is capable of being bent for ready formation of the coils and for bending to any desired angular disposition relative to the base) and the second irregular portion abuts the first end (fig. 1, portion 24 of the irregular portion abuts the base 10).
Seliger does not teach “a yarn fluffing tool”, “the dowel having a length and circumference so that a user’s hand can comfortably enfold the dowel in one hand and work the yarn fluffing tool on a length of yarn”. However, “a yarn fluffing tool” and “so that a user’s hand can comfortably enfold the dowel in one hand and work the yarn fluffing tool on a length of yarn” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use 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, then it meets the claim. In this case, the dowel of Seliger can be enfolded by the user’s hand and can be used as a yarn fluffing tool as the tool has the same structure as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, Seliger teaches the first loop and second loop form an angled opening (fig. 1).
Seliger does not teach the angled opening having an angle α of about 700 to about 1200.
However, Seliger teaches the portions 14 are formed from wire stock of a suitable alloy which is capable of being bent for ready formation of the coils and for bending to any desired angular disposition relative to the base (column 1, line 69 to column 2, line 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the angle of Seliger to be about 700 to about 1200 as suggested by Seliger for the benefit of supporting the flowers in any desired angular positions.
Regarding claim 3, Seliger teaches the loops are made from wire (column 1, line 70).
Regarding claim 5, Seliger does not teach the yarn fluffing tool is configured to fluff chunky yarn.
However, “configured to fluff chunky yarn” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use 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, then it meets the claim. In this case, as the device of Seliger has all the structures of the invention, the device of Seliger can perform the function “configured to fluff chunky yarn”.
Regarding claim 6, Seliger does not teach the yarn fluffing tool is configured to fluff bulky, supper bulky, or jumbo yarn.
However, “configured to fluff bulky, supper bulky, or jumbo yarn” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use 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, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Seliger teaches a tool (fig. 1) comprising:
a dowel (fig. 1, base 10), the dowel comprising a first end and a second end (fig. 2); the dowel having a length and circumference;
a first loop (fig. 1, a first element 14) extending from the first end, the first loop having a generally smooth shape (fig. 1, portion 20), wherein the generally smooth shape is generally linear or curved with smooth transitions in direction and angles and without sudden changes in direction or sharp angles (fig. 1, portion 20 is linear), except for a first irregular portion (fig. 1, portion 16 extending to the base 10) where the first loop terminates at the first end (fig. 1) and that first irregular portion has an irregular shape (fig. 1, coil shape), the first loop is bent in a first direction away from a longitudinal direction of the dowel (fig. 1), the first irregular portion abuts the first end (fig. 1, portion 24 of the irregular portion abuts the base 10) and wherein the first irregular portion generally has sudden changes in direction and/or sharp angles (fig. 1);
a second loop (fig. 1, a second element 14) extending from the first end and adjacent to the first loop (fig. 1), the second loop having a generally smooth shape (fig. 1, portion 20 is linear) except for a second irregular portion (fig. 1, portion 16 extending to the base 10) where the second loop terminates at the first end (fig. 1) and that second irregular portion has an irregular shape (fig. 1, coil shape), the second loop is bent in a second direction away from the longitudinal direction of the dowel (fig. 1), wherein the second loop is basically a mirror image shape of the first loop (fig. 1); and wherein the first irregular portion and the second irregular portion are sinusoidal shape, square wave shape, triangle wave shape, or pulse wave shape (see fig. 2), and at least two troughs and crests of the sinusoidal shape, two squares, two triangle, or two pulses of the first irregular portion overlap with at least two troughs and crests of the sinusoidal shape, two squares, two triangle, or two pulses of the second irregular portion (figs. 1-2, there are overlapped portions between two adjacent portions 16; further, column 1, line 69 to column 2, lines 1-3, the portion 14 is capable of being bent for ready formation of the coils and for bending to any desired angular disposition relative to the base) and the second irregular portion abuts the first end (fig. 1, portion 24 of the irregular portion abuts the base 10).
Seliger does not teach “a yarn fluffing tool”, “the dowel having a length and circumference so that a user’s hand can comfortably enfold the dowel in one hand and work the yarn fluffing tool on a length of yarn”. However, “a yarn fluffing tool” and “so that a user’s hand can comfortably enfold the dowel in one hand and work the yarn fluffing tool on a length of yarn” is an intended use of the invention. A recitation of the intended use 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, then it meets the claim. In this case, the dowel of Seliger can be enfolded by the user’s hand and can be used as a yarn fluffing tool as the tool has the same structure as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger (US 3087280), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramirez (US 6935070).
Regarding claim 4, Seliger does not teach the dowel is made from wood or plastic.
However, in the same field of tools with a dowel and wire loops, Ramirez teaches the base is made from wood or plastic (column 4, lines 55-63).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the base of Seliger with wood or plastic as taught by Ramirez for the benefit of providing insulating materials to the base of the device (Ramirez, column 4, lines 55-63).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger (US 3087280), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pugh (US 6389744).
Regarding claim 7, Seliger does not teach the loops are made from plastic.
However, in the same field of tools with wire loops, Pugh teaches the loops are made from plastic (column 4, lines 63-64).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the loop of Seliger with plastic as taught by Pugh for the benefit of providing a lightweight and inexpensive material for the device.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger (US 3087280), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 5788368) and Vazquez (US 2025/0057363).
Regarding claim 10, Seliger does not teach the first end and second ends are covered with plastic caps.
However, in the same field of hand tool with a dowel and wire loops, Anderson teaches the first end and second ends are covered with caps (fig. 5, elements 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Seliger with the first end and second ends covered with caps as taught by Anderson for the benefit of securing the ends of the device while saving material and cost in making the device.
The modified structure Seliger-Anderson does not teach the caps are plastic.
However, in the same field of hand tools with a dowel and wire loops, Vazquez teaches the cap is made of plastic (para. [0039], the cap is made of ABS; para. [0023], ABS stands for Acrylonitrile Butadience Styrene plastic).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Seliger-Anderson with plastic material for the caps as taught by Vazquez for the benefit of providing lightweight and inexpensive material in making the device.
Regarding claim 11, Seliger does not teach the first end and second ends are covered with metal caps.
However, Anderson teaches the first end and second ends are covered with caps (fig. 5, elements 18 and 20).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Seliger with the first end and second ends covered with caps as taught by Anderson for the benefit of securing the ends of the device while saving material and cost in making the device.
The modified structure Seliger-Anderson does not teach the caps are metal.
However, in the same field of hand tools with a dowel and wire loops, Vazquez teaches the cap is made of metal (para. [0039], claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Seliger-Anderson with metal material for the caps as taught by Vazquez for the benefit of enhancing durability, corrosion resistance in making the device.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seliger (US 3087280), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivera (US 2015/0157076).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Seliger does not teach the dowel has a length of about 3 inches to about 8 inches, and a circumference of about 0.5 inches to about 4 inches.
However, in the same field of hand tools, Rivera teaches the dowel has a length of about 3 inches to about 8 inches (para. [0025]), and a circumference of about 0.5 inches to about 4 inches (para. [0028], the diameter can comprise 1/2 inch, 3/16 inch, and 1/8 inch, or the circumference can be 1.57, 0.588, and 0.39 inches).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Seliger with the length of about 3 inches to about 8 inches, and the circumference of about 0.5 inches to about 4 inches as suggested by Rivera for the benefit of providing a flower arrangement with artificial flowers (Rivera, para. [0006], figs. 4A-4C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM-4:30 PM 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3732