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 7-8 and 12 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.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are indefinite and vague. What constitutes “a plurality of mounting areas?” The mounting spaces have been identified as holes and grooves, thus what is the difference between the areas? In so far the claims are understood as any holes and grooves with areas meet(s) the limitations of the claims.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pope et al., U.S. Patent No. 10201124 B2.
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, Pope ‘124 discloses a soft rod 16 (i.e., metal, plastic, claims 2 and 5), applied to a picking device (see figure 1), wherein the picking device comprises a first mounting structure (14, right side) and a second mounting structure (14, left side), the first mounting structure is connected to one end of the soft rod (near 24b), and the second mounting structure is connected to the other end of the soft rod (near 24a), and at least one end of the soft rod is provided with a bending portion (see figure 2) rather than two bending portions, the bending portion closed to the end is bent into a L-shape rather than a hook shape, and the at least the bending portion is configured to snap (see figure 5) with the first mounting structure and/or the second mounting structure; and at least two mounting spaces and areas as grooves and holes (areas in each 40, 42 teeth in between as well as 43 for the area, see drawing below, claims 6-12), see figures 1-5.
As stated above, Pope ‘124 shows a L-shape and a bending portion rather than a hook shape and two bending portions. However, Pope ‘124 recognizes that end portions of the wires may be curved to form the hooked ends and any method known in the art and not limited to figures 1-5, see column 5, lines 10-17.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the shape of soft rod to include a hook shape and two bending portions as suggested by Pope ‘124 that other modifications can be made to the end portions of the wires. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
518
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For sake of prosecuting the case further, see U.S. Patent No. 9445545, a continuation case of U.S Patent No. 10201124 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
8/13/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights