DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/787,579.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are examined.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pulizzi et al. (U.S. Patent 11,208,818).
Regarding claim 1, Pulizzi et al. disclose a cap apparatus (#100) for covering an exposed end of an article of hardware (an article of hardware is configured to be inserted into the cap as broadly defined, where such an article is not positively defined), the cap apparatus comprising:
a base (#10) having a top side (the bottom surface as depicted in figure 2, where such an object can be rotated 180 degrees so that such a surface presents as a top side as broadly defined), a bottom side (#11), and a perimeter side (the vertical perimeter side as depicted in figure 3), the perimeter side extending between the top side and the bottom side (see figure 3); and
a sleeve (#15) coupled to and extending away from the top side of the base (see figure 2), the sleeve having a front wall (the south-west facing wall #40 of figure 1), a back wall (the north-east facing wall #40 of figure 1), and a pair of lateral walls (the north-west and south-east facing walls #15 of figure 1), the lateral walls being coupled to and extending between the front wall and the back wall (see figure 2), the sleeve defining a slot (#45) surrounded by the front wall, the back wall, and the pair of lateral walls (see figure 2), the slot being open at a top end of the sleeve (the bottom end of the sleeve #15 of figure 2, which can be rotated 180 degrees so as to be top facing and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined), the slot being sized and configured to fit around the exposed end of the article of hardware (an article of hardware is configured to be inserted therein, where such an article is not positively defined), the slot having a rectangular cross section (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 4, Pulizzi et al. disclose the sleeve is sized and configured to have an interference fit with the exposed end of the article hardware (an article of the same size or slightly larger can be inserted within the sleeve and form an interference fit therewith, where such an article and connection is not positively defined).
Regarding claim 5, Pulizzi et al. disclose the slot has a uniform thickness between the front wall and the back wall (see figures 3 and 4, where the distance between the front and back walls is uniform so as to form parallel walls with a uniform thickness between such elements).
Regarding claim 6, Pulizzi et al. disclose the slot has as uniform width between the pair of lateral walls (see figures 3 and 4, where the distance between the lateral walls is uniform since they extend parallel to one another so as to form a slot of uniform width).
Regarding claim 7, Pulizzi et al. disclose the sleeve is positioned entirely inwardly of the perimeter side of the base (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Pulizzi et al. disclose a support member (#30) coupled to the top side of the base and an exterior of the sleeve (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Pulizzi et al. disclose the support member has an outer surface which is angled toward the sleeve from the base to a distal end of the outer surface with respect to the base (see figure 3, where the oblique outer surface of the support member #30 is angled to extend toward the sleeve).
Regarding claim 10, Pulizzi et al. disclose a front support member and a back support member coupled to the base and the sleeve, the front support member coupled to the front wall, the back support member coupled to the back support member (the element #30 coupled to the front wall can be considered the front support member and the element #30 coupled to the back wall can be considered the back support member of figure 2).
Regarding claim 11, Pulizzi et al. disclose the front and back support members each have an outer surface which is angled toward the sleeve from the base to a distal end with respect to the base (ese figures 2 and 3, where the outer, oblique angle of the support members #30 is angled to extend towards the end of the sleeve #15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Pulizzi et al. or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pulizzi et al. in view of Dunn (U.S. Patent 7,716,898).
Regarding claim 2, Pulizzi et al. disclose the perimeter side tapers from the top side to the bottom side (see figures 1 and 3, where the perimeter side decreases in width from the top surface to the bottom surface due to the rounded taper at the corner between the perimeter side and the bottom side). However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Pulizzi et al. as comprising of a taper from the top side to the bottom side along the perimeter side, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Dunn, that the outer perimeter side of a base #18 of a protective cap can taper from the right, top side to the bottom, left side so that the perimeter side is wider at the top side than the bottom side. See figure 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cap of Pulizzi et al. to comprise of a perimeter side with a taper from the top side to the bottom side, as taught in Dunn, in order to provide the cap with specific aesthetics as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulizzi et al. in view of Gregorwich (U.S. Patent 11,479,972).
Regarding claim 3, Pulizzi et al disclose the top and bottom sides of the base comprise of a rectangular shape rather than a rounded shape as defined. However, col. 4, ll. 3-6 of Pulizzi et al. disclose the base #10 can comprise of alternate shapes and sizes. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Gregorwich, that both rectangular and rounded shapes can be used for such a base of a protective cap. See col. 2, ll. 38-42. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the base of the cap of Pulizzi et al. to be rounded rather than rectangular, as taught in Gregorwich, in order to provide an aesthetic shape as wanted by the end user while also using less material to construct such a base yet still provide the required protection as needed and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pulizzi et al. in view of Gregorwich, or in the alternative in view of Gregorwich and Dunn.
Regarding claim 12, Pulizzi et al. disclose a cap apparatus (#100) for covering an exposed end of an article of hardware (an article of hardware is configured to be inserted into the cap as broadly defined), the cap apparatus comprising:
a base (#10) having a top side (the bottom surface as depicted in figure 2, where such an object can be rotated 180 degrees so that such a surface presents as a top side as broadly defined), a bottom side (#11), and a perimeter side (the vertical perimeter side as depicted in figure 3), the perimeter side extending between the top side and the bottom side (see figure 3), the perimeter side tapering from the top side to the bottom side (see figures 1 and 3, where the perimeter side decreases in width from the top surface to the bottom surface due to the rounded taper at the corner between the perimeter side and the bottom side); and
a sleeve (#15) coupled to and extending away from the top side of the base (see figure 2), the sleeve having a front wall (the south-west facing wall #40 of figure 1), a back wall (the north-east facing wall #40 of figure 1), and a pair of lateral walls (the north-west and south east facing walls #15 of figure 1), the lateral walls being coupled to and extending between the front wall and the back wall (see figure 2), the sleeve defining a slot (#45) surrounded by the front wall, the back wall, and the pair of lateral walls (see figure 2), the slot being open at a top end of the sleeve (the bottom end of the sleeve #15 of figure 2, which can be rotated 180 degrees so as to be top facing and thus meet such limitations as broadly defined), the slot having a rectangular cross section (see figure 2), the slot being sized and configured to fit around the exposed end of the article of hardware (an article of hardware is configured to be inserted therein, where such an article is not positively defined), the sleeve is sized and configured to have an interference fit with the exposed end (an article of the same size or slightly larger can be inserted within the sleeve and form an interference fit therewith, where such an article and connection is not positively defined), the slot having a uniform thickness between the front wall and the back wall (see figures 3 and 4, where the distance between the front and back walls is uniform so as to form a uniform thickness between such elements), the slot having a uniform width between the pair of lateral walls (see figures 3 and 4, where the distance between the lateral walls is uniform since they extend parallel to one another so as to form a slot of uniform width), the sleeve is positioned entirely inwardly of the perimeter side of the base (see figure 2); and
a front support member and a back support member coupled to the top side of the base and an exterior of the sleeve, the front support member coupled to the front wall, the back support member coupled to the back support member (the element #30 coupled to the front wall can be considered the front support member and the element #30 coupled to the back wall can be considered the back support member of figure 2, where such support members are attached to an exterior of such a sleeve #15), the front and back support members each having an outer surface which is angled toward the sleeve from the base to a distal end of the outer surface with respect to the base (see figures 2 and 3, where the outer, oblique angle of the support members #30 is angled to extend towards the end of the sleeve #15).
Pulizzi et al. disclose the top and bottom sides of the base comprise of a rectangular shape rather than a rounded shape as defined. However, col. 4, ll. 3-6 of Pulizzi et al. disclose the base #10 can comprise of alternate shapes and sizes. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Gregorwich, that both rectangular and rounded shapes can be used for such a base of a protective cap. See col. 2, ll. 38-42. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the base of the cap of Pulizzi et al. to be rounded rather than rectangular, as taught in Gregorwich, in order to provide an aesthetic shape as wanted by the end user while also using less material to construct such a base yet still provide the required protection as needed and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Furthermore, Pulizzi et al. is considered to disclose the perimeter side tapers from the top side to the bottom side as explained above. However, if the Examiner is considered to over broadly interpret Pulizzi et al. as comprising of a taper from the top side to the bottom side along the perimeter side, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Dunn, that the outer perimeter side of a base #18 of a protective cap can taper from the right, top side to the bottom, left side so that the perimeter side is wider at the top side than the bottom side. See figure 2. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the cap of Pulizzi et al. to comprise of a perimeter side with a taper from the top side to the bottom side, as taught in Dunn, in order to provide the cap with specific aesthetics as needed by the end user and also since it has been held that changing the shape of an object is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed base shape was significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635