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 Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “The device of claim 1 is a grinder” should read, “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is a grinder.”
In claim 10, “The device of claim 1 is a climbing top” should read, “The device of claim 1, wherein the device is a climbing top.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 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. Any claims not directly addressed are only rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for “the solid axle” making it unclear if the solid axle is intended to be the same as or additional to the “second axle”.
Regarding claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the interior of the proximal side” making it unclear if said feature is intended to be the same as or additional to “the interior of the first hollow body”.
Regarding claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for “the relative rotational motion”.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear if “the distal opening” is intended be the same as or additional to the “opening on the distal side”.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear whether the string is coupled to the detachable lid or another unspecified part of the device.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen (US 20140138465 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Dan Elzen (US 20110212665 A1) and Torres (US 20050233674 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yen discloses a device 400 comprising a first hollow body 440 (Figure 4a) and a second hollow body 440’ (Figure 4e) but is silent on a first hollow axle joining the first hollow body and the second hollow body and a second axle coaxial with and in slip-fit engagement with the first hollow axle. However, Elzen teaches a first hollow axle (8 and 10 together) joining the first hollow body 2 and the second hollow body 4, as well as a second axle (106 and 144 together) coaxial with and in slip-fit engagement with the first hollow axle 8, 10 (Elzen: Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yen to incorporate a hollow axle to insert a second solid axle through to link both hollow bodies with one another and hold the device assembly together (Elzen: Paragraph 10).
Yen is also silent on a first and second flywheel placed in the first and second hollow bodies respectively. However, Torres teaches a first flywheel 42 connected to the solid axle 44 and placed in the first hollow body 14, as well as a second flywheel 66 connected to the solid axle 44 and placed in the second hollow body 24 (Torres: Figures 2 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yen’s device to incorporate flywheels into each of its hollow bodies 440, 440’ to moderate the speed at which they revolve (Merriam-Webster definition of “flywheel”).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen discloses a string 460 encircling where the hollow axle would be located (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen discloses a first plurality of projections 441 located on the first hollow body 440 and extending into the interior of the first hollow body 440 (Figure 4a).
Regarding claim 4, which is dependent on claim 3, Yen discloses the first hollow body 440 includes a proximal side 442 and the first plurality of projections 441 are spaced apart on the interior of the proximal side 442 of the first hollow body 440 (Figure 4a).
Regarding claim 5, which is dependent on claim 3, Yen discloses a second plurality of projections 421 affixed to the first flywheel 420 and extending away from the first flywheel 420, wherein in the relative rotational motion of the first flywheel 420 and the first hollow body 440, the first plurality of projections 441 and the second plurality of projections 421 move freely (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen discloses that the first hollow body 440 includes a distal side 442, an opening on the distal side 442 of the first hollow body 440, and the device 400 further comprises a first cap 410 to seal the distal opening (see Figure 4a below).
PNG
media_image1.png
441
449
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen is silent on the inclusion of an inner race in an interference fit with the solid axel, an outer race in an interference fit with the hollow axle, and a plurality of bearings between the inner race and the outer race. However, Elzen teaches an inner race 31 in an interference fit with the solid axel 106, an outer race 32 in an interference fit with the hollow axle 10, and a plurality of bearings 33 between the inner race 31 and the outer race 32 (Elzen: Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yen’s device to incorporate an inner race to define an aperture through which the first hollow axle extends (Elzen: Paragraph 33), an outer race for the string to encircle (Elzen: Paragraph 35), and a plurality of bearings to enable the outer race to rotate relative to the inner race (Elzen: Paragraph 33), since it has been held that applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2143, subsection I.D).
Regarding claim 8, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen discloses a detachable lid 410 and coupled to a string 460 (Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen discloses that device 400 is a grinder (Paragraph 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pekarsky (US 6080035 A).
Regarding claim 10, which is dependent on claim 1, Yen is silent on whether device 400 could be a climbing top. However, Pekarsky teaches that a climbing top comprises two shells functioning as a rotor member between which the climbing or pulling string is guided, with the shells connected via an axle (Pekarsky: Paragraph 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Yen’s device to be classified as a climbing top based on these parameters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ORLANDO J RIOS whose telephone number is (571)270-0828. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/O.J.R./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 29 September 2026
