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
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Starrett Product Catalog 33, page 328, Product number 280 “Starrett 280”.
Regarding claim 1, Starrett 280 discloses an instrument string gauge (280 Piano Tuners’ Gage) comprising: a gauge body; and a plurality of slots arranged around the perimeter of the gauge body, each slot of the plurality of slots defining a width that is different from a width of the other slots of the plurality of slots, each slot of the plurality of slots configured to receive a string (Music Wire) of an instrument having a width that is less than or equal to width of the respective slot to indicate to a user an approximate width of the string. (See labelled image below taken from page 328 of Starrett Catalog)
PNG
media_image1.png
629
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1, wherein the gauge body is circular (see image above).
Regarding claim 10, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1, wherein the gauge body defines a diameter of between about 30 mm and about 45 mm (Starrett Catalog; Page 33; Product number 280; “Diameter of the gage is 1-9/16” (~39.69 mm)).
Regarding claim 11, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1, wherein the gauge body is formed of a rigid material (Starrett Catalog; Page 33; Product number 280; “AMERICAN STEEL AND WIRE CO. STANDARD
HARDENED”).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starrett 280 in view of Starrett Product Catalog 33, page 333, Product number 472 “Starrett 472”.
Regarding claim 2, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1.
Starrett 280 does not disclose a holder comprising a first portion and a second portion.
Starrett 472 teaches a holder comprising a first portion and a second portion (See labelled image below taken from page 333 of Starrett Catalog).
PNG
media_image2.png
946
1097
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Starrett 472’s holder with first and second portion to hold Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge, making it easier for a user to grip Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge.
Regarding claim 3, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 2, wherein the gauge body (Starrett 280) is rotatably coupled to the holder (Starrett 472; holder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rotatably couple Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge to Starrett 472’s holder, making it easier for a user to grip Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge and rotate to find the correct string gauge slot for their instrument.
Regarding claim 4, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 3, wherein the gauge body (Starrett 280) is coupled to the holder (Starrett 472; holder) via a pin (See labelled image below taken from page 333 of Starrett Catalog).
PNG
media_image3.png
946
1097
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Starrett 472’s pin to couple Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge to Starrett 472’s holder, making it easier for a user to grip Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge and rotate to find the correct string gauge slot for their instrument.
Regarding claim 12, Starrett 280 discloses an instrument string gauge (Starrett 280).
Starrett 280 does not disclose a holder comprising a first portion and a second portion; and at least one width gauge partially disposed between the first portion and the second portion such that at least a portion of the at least one width gauge protrudes outwards of a perimetral edge of the first portion and the second portion.
Starrett 472 teaches a holder comprising a first portion and a second portion; and at least one width gauge partially disposed between the first portion and the second portion such that at least a portion of the at least one width gauge protrudes outwards of a perimetral edge of the first portion and the second portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
946
1135
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge shape in Starrett 472 width gauge, making it easier for a user to grip Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge and find the correct string gauge slot for their instrument.
Regarding claim 13, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 12, wherein the at least one width gauge includes a first width gauge located at a first location between first portion and the second portion, and a second width gauge located at a second location between first portion and the second portion different from the first location.
PNG
media_image5.png
946
1097
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge shape in Starrett 472’s first and second width gauges, making it easier for a user to determine the gauge of string their instrument uses.
Regarding claim 14, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 12, wherein the first width gauge includes a first set of slots (slots 12-16 on Starrett 280) located around a perimeter (perimeter of Starrett 280) of the first width gauge, the second width gauge includes a second set of slots (slots 17-21 on Starrett 280) located around a perimeter (perimeter of Starrett 280) of the second width gauge, and each of the first set of slots having widths that are different than corresponding widths of each of the second set of slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Starrett 280’s first and second set of slots located around a perimeter on Starrett 472’s width gauge, making it easier for a user to determine the gauge of string their instrument uses.
Regarding claim 15, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 13, wherein the at least one width gauge further includes a third width gauge located at a third location between first portion and the second portion different from the first location and the second location.
PNG
media_image6.png
946
1097
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include Starrett 472’s third width gauge and third location in Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge, providing a third set of string gauge diameter options and making it easier for a user to determine the gauge of string their instrument uses.
Regarding claim 16, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 15, wherein: the first width gauge (Starrett 472; top gauge) includes a first set of slots (slots 12-16 on Starrett 280) located around the perimeter (perimeter of Starrett 280) of the first width gauge, the second width gauge (Starrett 472; left gauge) includes a second set of slots (slots 17-21 on Starrett 280) located around the perimeter (perimeter of Starrett 280) of the second width gauge (Starrett 472; left gauge), the third width gauge (Starrett 472; right gauge) includes a third set of slots (slots 22-28 on Starrett 280) located around the perimeter (perimeter of Starrett 280) of the second width gauge (Starrett 472; left gauge), and each of the first set of slots (slots 12-16 on Starrett 280), the second set of slots (slots 17-21 on Starrett 280), and the third set of slots (slots 22-28 on Starrett 280) having respective widths that are different than widths of other slots included in the first set of slots, the second set of slots, or the third set of slots.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Starrett 280’s first, second, and third set of slots around a perimeter of Starrett 472’s first, second, and third width gauges, providing multiple sets of string gauge diameter options and making it easier for a user to determine the gauge of string their instrument uses.
Regarding claim 17, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 12, wherein a shape of the holder (Starrett 472) corresponds to a shape of the instrument that the at least one width gauge is configured to be used with.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Starrett 472’s holder to have the shape of a corresponding instrument as a matter of aesthetic design and product identification, visually indicating an intended instrument of use, making it easier for a user to identify the correct string gauge for their instrument.
Regarding claim 18, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 12, wherein the at least one width gauge is rotatably coupled to the holder (See labelled image of Starrett 472 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rotatably couple Starrett 472’s holder and width gauge in Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge, making it quicker for a user to rotate Starrett 472’s width gauge and find a correct string gauge of their instrument.
Regarding claim 19, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 18, wherein the at least one width gauge is coupled to the holder via at least one pin (See labelled image of Starrett 472 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to couple Starrett 472’s width gauge with a pin in Starrett 280’s instrument string gauge, making it quicker for a user to rotate Starrett 472’s width gauge and find a correct string gauge of their instrument.
Regarding claim 20, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 18, wherein the at least one width gauge defines a diameter of between about 30 mm and about 45 mm (Starrett Catalog; Page 33; Product number 280; “Diameter of the gage is 1-9/16” (~39.69 mm)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Starrett 280’s diameter of between about 30 mm and about 45 mm in Starrett 472’s width gauge, making it easier for a user to find which width gauge to use on their instrument.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starrett 280 and Starrett 472, further in view of Powell (US4583440) “Powell”.
Regarding claim 5, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 2.
Neither Starrett 280, nor Starrett 472 disclose formed of a soft material.
Powell teaches formed of a soft material (Fig.2; 44 and Column 3; lines 63-68). Even if Powell did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known modification to one skilled in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form Starrett 472’s holder of the soft material taught by Powell, better preventing damage to the musical instrument.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starrett 280 and Starrett 472, further in view of Pearse (US5941490) “Pearse”.
Regarding claim 6, Starrett 280 and Starrett 472 disclose the instrument string gauge of claim 2.
Neither Starrett 280, nor Starrett 472 disclose coated with a soft material.
Pearse teaches coated with a soft material (Column 2; lines 15-17). Even if Pearse did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known modification to one skilled in the art
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coat Starrett 472’s holder with the soft material taught by Pearse, better preventing damage to the musical instrument.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starrett 280, further in view of Powell.
Regarding claim 7, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1.
Starrett 280 does not disclose formed of a soft material.
Powell teaches formed of a soft material (Fig.2; 44 and Column 3; lines 63-68). Even if Powell did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known modification to one skilled in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form Starrett 280’s gauge body of the soft material taught by Powell, better preventing damage to the musical instrument.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starrett 280, in view of Pearse.
Regarding claim 8, Starrett 280 discloses the instrument string gauge of claim 1.
Starrett 280 does not disclose coated with a soft material.
Pearse teaches coated with a soft material (Column 2; lines 15-17). Even if Pearse did not teach this, the Examiner takes official notice that it is well known modification to one skilled in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to coat Starrett 280’s gauge body with the soft material taught by Pearse, better preventing damage to the musical instrument
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US6047606 discloses a combination bolt sizing tool.
US11040411 discloses a depth gauge.
US20090307919 discloses a thickness gauge.
US0318051 discloses a screw thread gauge.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6528. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/ANNA JOSEPHINE SAUNDERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights