DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final office action on the merits. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the Office) has received claims 1–20 in application number 18810033. Claims 1–20 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because it appears the article “the” was omitted from the start of line 5, i.e., “--the-- horizontal member . . .”
Claim 8 is objected to because subject/verb agreement in line 2 should be “the at least one channel further
Claim 12 is objected to because it does not comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i) because claims must begin with a capital letter and end with a period (.), and periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 12 ends with a semicolon rather than a period. Appropriate correction is appreciated.
Claim 14 is objected to because subject/verb agreement in line 7 should be “the second truncated member
Claim 16 is objected to because the comma in line 3 between “members” and “comprises” should be deleted.
Claim 18 is objected to because the comma in line 4 between “tremolo” and “aligns” should be deleted.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1–20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1–20. Claims 1, 11, and 17 use the phrase “composed of” as a transition between the preamble “A tuning slide clip” and the body of the claim. Other parts of these claims and the dependent claims use the transition phrase “comprises” or “comprising” almost 40 times. For example, claims 1 and 2 recite:
A tuning slide clip composed of a C-shaped clip comprising an at least one channel; wherein: the C-shaped clip couples to a tremolo comprising a plurality of string lock screws; and . . .
The tuning slide clip, as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an at least one bevel wherein the at least one bevel is adjacent to the at least one channel.
As discussed in MPEP 2111.03, the transitional term “comprising” is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” and is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. However, the transitional phrase “composed of” has been interpreted in the same manner as either “consisting of” or “consisting essentially of,” depending on the facts of the particular case, and excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim.
The mixing of “composed of” and “comprising” in the claims renders the claims indefinite because it would not be clear to one of skill in the art if the claim excludes all elements not specified in the claim or if the claim is open-ended. The overall indefiniteness is exacerbated by the direct contradiction illustrated above where claim 1 uses “composed of” and claim 2 uses “further comprising.” Based on the prevalence of “comprising” and its variants in the claims (nearly 40 instances) compared to just 3 instances of “composed of,” the examiner will interpret the facts of this claims as making the claims open-ended and non-exclusive. Applicant needs to amend the claim as appropriate.
Regarding claim 3. Claim 3 recites “the at least one bevel comprises a first channel; and a second channel” and later recites “the first channel is adjacent to the first bevel; and the second channel is adjacent to the second bevel.” However, there is no antecedent basis for “the first bevel” and “the second bevel” so it is unclear if these phrases are meant to introduce these elements or they both refer back to “the at least one bevel” or if the claim was meant to recite the at least one bevel comprises a first bevel; and a second bevel”. As a result, one of skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of claim 3.
Regarding claim 4. Claim 4 recites, and claims 5–8 incorporate “the plurality of truncated members are coaxially arranged members separated by a distance.” Claim 4 does not establish a cross-sectional shape of the truncated member so the nature of the axis within that cross section is unclear, making the meaning of “members are coaxially arranged” also unclear.
Regarding claims 6–7 and 17–20. Claim 6 recites the illustrative limitation “[the] horizontal member comprising a first end and a second end wherein said ends are opposite distal ends of the horizontal member.” There are other instances of “the distal ends of the horizontal member” in claim 6. The term “distal” is unclear because both ends of a single member are not typically both “distal” unless a reference point is defined. The claim does not define a reference point or “proximate” end of the horizontal member to which a “distal” end is relative. The examiner notes that claim 5 does recite “the truncated member comprises a distal end and a proximal end” so it is not clear if claim 6 (which depends from claim 5) was meant to refer to the “distal” end of the truncated member rather than the horizonal member. Claims 7 and 18–20 incorporate the issue from claims 6 and 17.
The examiner suggests amending the claim as “[the] horizontal member comprising a first end and a second end wherein said ends are opposite
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Refractory Anchors C-Clip (see PTO-892 for website as archived on June 19, 2021).
Regarding claim 17. The limitations of claim 17 have been denoted with letters that correspond to labels in the image of the Refractory Anchors C-Clip that follows:
17. A tuning slide clip composed of a C-shaped clip comprising:
a horizontal member;
a plurality of vertical members; and
a plurality of truncated members;
wherein:
the horizontal member comprises a first end and a second end, wherein said first end and second end are opposite distal ends of the horizontal member;
the plurality of vertical members comprising a first vertical member and a second vertical member;
the plurality of truncated members comprising a first truncated member and a second truncated member;
the first vertical member being perpendicularly interposed between the first end of the horizontal member and the first truncated member;
the second vertical member being interposed between the second end of the horizontal member and the second truncated member; and
the first truncated member comprising an at least one channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
868
936
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although limitations H and I are not labeled in the image above, it can be seen that the first and second vertical members (C,F) are perpendicularly interposed between the first and second ends (E) of the horizontal member (B) and the first and second truncated members (D,G).
Because Refractory Anchor’s C-Clip has all of the structures recited in claim 17, it anticipates claim 17. The examiner suggests incorporating the additional structure of claim 18 into claim 17 to overcome this rejection.
Novel / Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The examiner completed a search for prior art using terminology directed to both the structure of the claimed invention as well as the function (see attached SRNT documents for specific queries). In both cases, no prior art was identified that teaches or renders obvious a C-shaped clip recited in claim 1 (the broadest independent claim). Prior art devices are affixed to the guitar in some manner either using screws on the face of the guitar or bridge structure, or integrated into the guitar body, neck, or headstock, and lack the feature of a C-shaped clip that is structurally capable of both engaging with a plurality of string lock screws and lateral movement (i.e., across the strings) to adjust the alignment configuration of the clip with respect to the strings, changing the string lock screw actuated by the clip.
In particular, when tailoring the search to the structure of the clip as recited in claims 1 and 11, and more specifically recited in claim 18, the examiner was not able to identify teaching of a clip having vertical members perpendicularly interposed between two ends of a horizontal member and two truncated members, where one of the truncated members has at least one channel and where the structure is capable of being removably coupled to a guitar tremolo while permitting lateral movement. The references cited below each teach a generally rectangular c-shaped clip but each of them lacks aspects of the structure recited in claims 1, 11, and 18.
Additionally, when tailoring the search to the functionality of the claimed clip, the resulting prior art references pertained more to the processing of electronic signals for vibrato, pitch bending, and pitch adjustment, etc., and were overall less pertinent to a structural component for an electric guitar bridge.
Finally, the examiner conducted a search attempting to identify prior art analogous to the particular problem of actively adjusting the tension in a string, cable, or wire using a movable clip structure, as well as to the field of endeavor of C-shaped clips, and was not able to identify prior art with the features recited in claim 1.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that the C-shaped clip structure with at least one channel configured to couple with a tremolo by engaging with a plurality of string lock screws and engaging or disengaging with particular screws through lateral movement across the strings, as recited in claims 1, 11, and 18, and incorporated into claims 2–10, 12–16, and 19–20, is novel and nonobvious.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
During assembly of the flyback transformer 28, a plastic spacer 45, made of polyurethane, for example, is positioned between the first and second legs 30-1-1 and 30-2-1 of the core members 30-1 and 30-2, and these legs are positioned in the supporting means 40 as shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. Thereafter, the second legs 30-1-2 and 30-2-2 are aligned and a rectangular “C-shaped” clip 46 (FIG. 7) is fitted into a mating recess 47 located around the periphery of the core 30. A conventional fixture may be used to hold the transformer 28, and when so held, a conventional or epoxy material is filled in the voids, like area 48 to hold the supporting means 40 and the magnetic core member in the positions shown so that the planar faces 34 and 36 are in abutting relationship, and the appropriate gap 32 exists between the first and second legs 30-1-1 and 30-2-1 as previously mentioned. In operation, the magnetic core 30 is grounded (via the clip 46), as shown in FIG. 7, to also reduce the VLF emissions. In the embodiment described, the gap 32 is 0.254 mm, and it develops the primary inductance of the flyback transformer 28 needed to develop the associated high voltage. In the embodiment described, the inductance needed was 1.32 millihenrys. The dimensions of first leg 30-1-1 (prior to machining), the section 30-1-3, and the second leg 30-1-2 (FIG. 2) are 29 millimeter, 35 millimeters, and 29 millimeters, respectively. Naturally, these dimensions would change for different transformers. (Marszalik)
C-shaped Clip Member 62 (Herkstroeter)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick McAtee whose telephone number is (571)272-7575. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:30am - 4:30pm ET.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
Patrick McAtee
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3698
/PATRICK MCATEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3698
Prosecution Insights