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 .
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 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “said enclosure generally having a front and two sides” is unclear as it is unknown if the limitations followings the word “generally” are a part of the claimed invention. As the meets and bounds of the claim are unknown the claim is indefinite and appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of examination claim 1 is being interpreted as follows;
“an upright enclosure, said enclosure
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.
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, 3, and 4, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNenny (WO 2017223088 A1) in view of Bartholomew et al. (US 20020010528 A1)
Regarding claim 1, McNenny teaches an upright enclosure (Fig. 1 element 20 and paragraph [0030]), said enclosure having a front (Fig. 1 element 22 and paragraph [0030]) and two sides (Fig. 1 elements 24 and 28 and paragraph [0030]) and defining a space therein for the application of a tattoo to a person’s skin (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0030]); at least one display touchscreen located at a first location of the enclosure, said display touchscreen having an interface through which one of a plurality of tattoo designs can be selected and purchased (Fig. 1 element 34 and paragraph [0030]); a movable robotic arm within the enclosure space (Fig. 2b element 82 and paragraph [0038]); a spray assembly attached to the end of the movable robotic arm (Fig. 2b element 62b and paragraph [0038]); and a control system which, moves the robotic arm to locate the spray assembly near the body part and sprays the tattoo on the customer’s skin (paragraphs [0036] and [0037]).
But McNenny fails to teach a system for providing the customer with information identifying the purchased tattoo design at the location of said at least one display touchscreen, a second location of the enclosure at which the information identifying the purchased tattoo and the body part to receive the purchased tattoo can be presented and when the information identifying the purchased tattoo design and the body part are presented at the second location the control system activates the spray assembly.
Bartholomew et al. teaches a kiosk with first location (Fig. 9 element 106 and paragraph [0062]) a system for providing the customer with information identifying the purchased tattoo design at the location of said at least one display touchscreen (paragraph [0062]) and a second location of the enclosure at which the information identifying the purchased art and the body part to receive the purchased art can be presented (Fig. 9 element 112 and paragraphs [0063] and [0062]) and when the information identifying the purchased art design and the body part are presented at the second location the control system activates the spray assembly (paragraph [0063]). The examiner further notes that the fact the claims are directed to a kiosk for tattoos is intended use according to MPEP 2115 and that these limitations do not have any patentable weight. As such, Bartholomew et al. teaches an analogous apparatus as it is a kiosk designed to apply a design to the human body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the tattoo application device of McNenny with the second display and identification information of Bartholomew et al. as a combination of known elements in the prior art to achieve a kiosk capable of helping multiple users at once.
Regarding claim 3, McNenny and Bartholomew et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to specifically teach wherein the information identifying the purchased tattoo design comprises a QR code and the second location of the enclosure includes a QR code scanner.
However, Bartholomew does teach the identifying information being on a card that contains the user’s selection and an input device for the user to present the card to retrieve their information (paragraph [0062]).
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a QR code and QR code scanner instead of a generic card containing the identification information and input device as a simple substitution of a generic data transfer medium and input device for a specific QR system, well known in the art of kiosks, to yield a kiosk that uses QR codes to keep track of orders.
Regarding claim 4, McNenny and Bartholomew et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to specifically teach wherein the information identifying the purchased tattoo design comprises a number and the second location of the enclosure allows the customer to input the number to initiate the tattoo application process.
However, Bartholomew et al. does teach identifying information being on a card that contains the user’s selection and an input device for the user to present the card to retrieve their information (paragraph [0062]).
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use a number and number input device instead of a generic card containing the identification information and input device as a simple substitution of a generic data transfer medium and input device for a specific system using numbers, well known in the art of kiosks, to yield a kiosk that uses a number system to keep track of orders.
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNenny (WO 2017223088 A1) and Bartholomew et al. (US 20020010528 A1) and further in view of Weber et al. (US 6341831 B1).
Regarding claim 5, McNenny and Bartholomew et al. teach all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach a computer vision system to determine the position of the spray assembly so as to be near the customer’s body part to receive the purchased tattoo.
However, McNenney does teach a sensor within the kiosk (Fig. 2b element 84).
Weber et al. teaches an automatic tattoo apparatus with a computer vision system to determine the position of the spray assembly so as to be near the customer’s body part to receive the purchased tattoo (Fig. 1 element 30, Fig. 4 element 102, column 5 lines 26-38 and column 7 lines 32-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the kiosk of McNenny and Bartholomew et al. with the sensors of Weber et al. as a substitution of a generic sensor in McNenny for the specific one in Weber et al. to “maintain a constant nozzle to skin separation and thereby improve image quality” (Column 7 lines 37-39).
Regarding claim 6, McNenny Bartholomew et al. and Weber et al. teach all the elements of claim 5 as stated above and McNenny teaches wherein the computer vision system is assisted by sensors located in the kiosk (Fig. 2b element 84).
Regarding claim 8, McNenny and Bartholomew et al. teach and Weber et al. all the elements of claim 1 as stated above but they fail to teach plexiglass and the customer can view the spray assembly and their body part during the tattoo application process.
However, McNenney teaches a viewing window wherein the customer can view the spray assembly and their body part during the tattoo application process (Fig. 1 element 38 and paragraph [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use Plexiglas instead of the generic glass as taught by McNenny as a simple substitution of one material for another to yield a window made of a glass material known in the art to be see-through, light and cheap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 2, 7, 9 and 10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a tattoo printing kiosk having all the structure as recited in combination with and particularly including wherein the second location contains a display for displaying instructions to the customer.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a tattoo printing kiosk having all the structure as recited in combination with and particularly including wherein the control system does not begin to spray the purchased tattoo design until the customer has confirmed the location of their body part and the spray assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a tattoo printing kiosk having all the structure as recited in combination with and particularly including wherein the kiosk provides an outline of the purchased tattoo design, and the purchased tattoo is sprayed on the customer’s skin within the outline.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a tattoo printing kiosk having all the structure as recited in combination with and particularly including when the information identifying the selected tattoo design is presented at a second location of the kiosk, instructing the customer how to apply the outline and position their body part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Azdoud et al. (US 11376407 B2) is cited as having a similar structure to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL F BOELITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3391. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/SAMUEL FREDERICK BOELITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/Manish S Shah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights