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.
Claims 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.
With Respect to Claims 1, 5, and 20
The scope of the phrases “relatively resilient” and “relatively flexible” are unclear, noting that it is unclear what they must be resilient/flexible relative to, and/or how resilient/flexible they need to be in order to be considered “relatively” resilient/flexible.
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
With Respect to Claims 2-4 and 6-19
These claims are rejected as they depend from a rejected claim and so incorporate its indefinite scope.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0093403 to Gates (Gates). Gates discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A gripping mechanism, comprising: a relatively resilient endoskeleton (noting inner core forming 16a-c, [0033]); and a relatively flexible elastomer ([0031] discloses Sanoprene® which is an elastomer) embedding the relatively resilient endoskeleton therein (FIGS. 1-2 and description), wherein the gripping mechanism comprises a first jaw formed from the relatively flexible elastomer that contains one part of the endoskeleton and a second jaw formed from the relatively flexible elastomer that contains an opposing part of the endoskeleton (noting 16a and either 16b or 16c).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication #2006/0151674 to Hancock (Hancock) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock, either alone or in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2008/0093403 to Gates (Gates).
With Respect to Claim 1
A gripping mechanism, comprising: a relatively resilient endoskeleton (22 and 20A/B, the disclosed material of steel is a relatively resilient material to the extent claimed, [0028]); and a relatively flexible elastomer ([0028] noting rubberized indicates rubber which is an elastomer or alternately clearly renders such obvious) embedding the relatively resilient endoskeleton therein (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-2, [0028]), wherein the gripping mechanism comprises a first jaw (e.g. 12) formed from the relatively flexible elastomer that contains one part of the endoskeleton and a second jaw (e.g. 14) formed from the relatively flexible elastomer that contains an opposing part of the endoskeleton.
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that bendable steel is relatively resilient to the extent claimed, Gates discloses forming a similar gripping mechanism with a relatively resilient endoskeleton embedded in a relatively flexible elastomer, the resilient endoskeleton providing a biased securing force to the article in the containment area between the jaws ([0011-0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gates, to form the endoskeleton of Hancock out of a resilient material as taught by Gates (e.g. a resilient and bendable steel), in order to provide a securing force to the article held in the containment area between the arms/jaws, as a mere selection of an art appropriate material to use, and/or as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With Respect to Claim 2
The gripping mechanism of claim 1, wherein the elastomer has a V-shaped configuration (FIG. 1 shows a V-shaped configuration noting 16 in combination with 12/14 is in the shape of a V).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock, either alone or in view of Gates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0361655 to Jimenez (Jimenez).
With Respect to Claim 5
The gripping mechanism of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the relatively resilient endoskeleton further comprises at least one opening through its thickness and wherein the elastomer has at least one portion that passes through the at least one opening in the endoskeleton.
However, Jimenez discloses forming an endoskeleton (305) with a through-hole (345) that is at least one opening through its thickness and an overmolded relatively resilient elastomer (320, [0075]) that has at least one portion that passes through the at least one opening in the endoskeleton (FIG. 15) in order to integrally form the endoskeleton and the overmolded material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Jimenez, to add one or more openings/through-holes to the endoskeleton and overmold the elastomer to include a portion passing through the opening to attach both sides of the elastomer over the endoskeleton as taught by Jimenez, in order to integrally form and/or better secure the parts together. It is noted as to the combination with Gates that Gates also discloses the use of structures on the endoskeleton to mate with structures on the sheath/coating in order to better secure the two together, which provides addition motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this modification.
With Respect to Claim 6
The gripping mechanism of claim 5, wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are configured to flex toward one another by a bending joint formed by a portion of the endoskeleton that couples the one part to the opposing part (inasmuch as both will bend around 22, see e.g. FIG. 4).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock, either alone or in view of Gates as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. #8,534,519 to Hancock (Hancock2).
With Respect to Claim 9
The gripping mechanism of claim 1, and the use of resilient structures on the interior to provide a cushion; but does not disclose wherein the first jaw comprises a plurality of ribs interconnecting a first surface to a mouth.
However, Hancock2 discloses forming a similar first jaw with a plurality of ribs (noting ribs surrounding cells 132, see FIGS. 5-6 and 9) interconnecting a first surface (inner surface of jaw) to a mouth (noting mouth formed by inner surfaces 124, FIG. 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hancock2, to replace the interior cushioning structure of Hancock/the combination with an internal cushioning structure as taught by Hancock2, in order to provide a stronger cushioning and/or biasing force securing objects in the holder, and/or as a mere substitution of one art known cushioning structure for another.
With Respect to Claim 10
The gripping mechanism of claim 9, wherein the second jaw comprises a plurality of ribs interconnecting a first surface to a mouth (per Hancock2).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock in view of Jimenez, either alone or also in view of Gates as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Gates (for clarity, although the rejection of claims 1 and 5-6 above may alternately use or not use Gates, the rejection of claim 11 uses Gates for at least the subject matter of claim 11).
With Respect to Claim 11
The gripping mechanism of claim 5, but does not disclose wherein at least one portion of the endoskeleton is exposed through the elastomer coating.
However, Gates discloses including at least one portion (32) where the endoskeleton is exposed through the outer coating material in order to provide a relatively lower friction area where an object is inserted into the gripping mechanism to make it easier to insert while maintaining firm engagement after insertion ([0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gates, to add one or more portions (32) where the endoskeleton is exposed through the elastomer coating, in order to provide a relatively lower friction area where an object is inserted into the gripping mechanism to make it easier to insert while maintaining firm engagement after insertion as taught by Gates.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock in view of Hancock2, either alone or in view of Gates as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gates (for clarity, although the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above may alternately use or not use Gates, the rejection of claims 12-13 uses Gates for at least the subject matter of claim 12).
With Respect to Claim 12
The gripping mechanism of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein at least one portion of the endoskeleton is exposed through the elastomer coating.
However, Gates discloses including at least one portion (32) where the endoskeleton is exposed through the outer coating material in order to provide a relatively lower friction area where an object is inserted into the gripping mechanism to make it easier to insert while maintaining firm engagement after insertion ([0033-0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Gates, to add one or more portions (32) where the endoskeleton is exposed through the elastomer coating, in order to provide a relatively lower friction area where an object is inserted into the gripping mechanism to make it easier to insert while maintaining firm engagement after insertion as taught by Gates. For clarity, it is noted that Hancock2 has thick cushioning material between much of the endoskeleton and the inner surface of the jaw, and this combination encompasses shaping and/or thickening the endoskeleton so as to extend through to form part of the inner surface of the jaw at the appropriate location, similar to what is shown in Gates FIG. 2.
With Respect to Claim 13
The gripping mechanism of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of ribs is angled with respect to the mouth of the respective first jaw and second jaw in which it is found (Hancock2 FIG. 9).
With Respect to Claim 14
The gripping mechanism of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of ribs is angled at an angle no greater than about 90 degrees (the angle shown is clearly less than 90 degrees).
With Respect to Claim 15
The gripping mechanism of claim 14, and shows an angle that appears to be no greater than about 60 degrees, but does not indicate a particular angle or that the drawings are to scale and so does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of ribs is angled at an angle no greater than about 60 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the ribs at an angle no greater than about 60 degrees, as a mere selection of an art appropriate angle and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04), and/or as the selection of a particular angle constitutes at most mere routine optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With Respect to Claim 16
The gripping mechanism of claim 15, and shows an angle that appears to be no greater than about 45 degrees, but does not indicate a particular angle or that the drawings are to scale and so does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of ribs is angled at an angle no greater than about 45 degrees.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the ribs at an angle no greater than about 45 degrees, as a mere selection of an art appropriate angle and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)), a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04), and/or as the selection of a particular angle constitutes at most mere routine optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hancock in view of Jimenez, either alone or also in view of Gates as applied to claim 5 above, either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #9,182,069 to Haarburger (Haarburger).
With Respect to Claim 17
The gripping mechanism of claim 5, further comprising a tongue (42) attached to one of the first jaw and the second jaw, but does not disclose that the tongue is integrally molded to the jaw.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to replace the c-clip attachment with an integrally molded attachment, in order to provide a stronger attachment between the points, to prevent potential loss of the band, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making integral which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, Haarburger discloses forming a similar band/tongue (6) for securing items in position that is integral with the body it is attached to, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of such construction.
With Respect to Claim 8
The gripping mechanism of claim 17, further comprising a hook (knob 18c as shown forms a hook) integrally molded to whichever one of the first jaw and the second jaw does not have the tongue (FIG. 1).
With Respect to Claim 19
The gripping mechanism of claim 18, wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are more proximal to one another when the tongue is engaged to the hook as compared to when the tongue is disengaged from the hook (FIG. 2 or alternately obvious to have the tongue bias the two together to provide a clamping action and so move the jaws more proximal when engaged and less proximal when disengaged).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-8, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: Hancock discloses a fastener (24) between two portions of the endoskeleton and embedded in the elastomer, but the fastener is not a sprocket and there is insufficient motivation to form it as a sprocket; additionally, none of the other prior art of record, alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious this subject matter of these claims in combination with the subject matter of the claims from which they depend, absent impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights