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 .
Claims 1-20 are being treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teramoto (US 2014/0166150) in view of Crorey (US 2010/0218840).
Regarding Claims 1 & 11, Teramoto discloses a kit for creating a bracelet comprising a plurality of beads (Para. 4 & 53); a quantity of thread (Para. 4 & 55); and a loom assembly (Figure 1) for creating a beaded bracelet (Para. 4 & 53), the loom comprising: a base (4A & 4B) including a track (4A & 4B); a first part (1A & 1B) disposed on one side of the base; and a slider (1C & 1D) adjustably mounted (Para. 84-86) to the track and spaced apart from the first part, wherein the slider includes a top assembly including a plurality of fingers (32/33/321) disposed within a corresponding plurality of slots (322/332), each of the plurality of fingers are biased against an inner surface of a corresponding one of slots such that an elongated member inserted into one of the slots is held in place between the finger and the inner surface (Figure 6, Para. 71-73). Teramoto does not specifically disclose a base including a storage area. However, Crorey discloses a base (12/60) including a storage area (60) for strings, beads, gems, etc. (Para. 32). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include a storage area, as taught by Crorey, to the base of Teramoto, in order to provide a means to hold loom pieces and allow for easy of travel.
Regarding Claims 2 & 12, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose a tray (Crorey, 62, Para. 71-73) configured to fit within the storage area, tray including interior dividing walls with at least one slot configured to aid in assembly of a bead to an elongated member (Crorey, 62, Para. 71-73).
Regarding Claims 3 & 13, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose the tray includes peripheral walls spaced apart by corner openings (Crorey, 62, Para. 71-73), wherein a bottom surface of the tray inclines upward at each of the corner openings (incline, see annotated Figure 8 below).
Regarding Claim 4 & 14, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose each of the first part and the slider part includes a central groove (Teramoto, central slot 322/332) open to a top side, the central groove narrowing in a direction away from the top side (Teramoto, Figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5 & 15, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose each of the first part and the slider part includes flanges (flanges, see annotated Figures 1 & 6 below) disposed above a first opening (opening, see annotated Figures 1 & 6 below), the first opening including a tab (tab, see annotated Figures 1 & 6 below) extending along a bottom surface and a stopper (Teramoto, 36/37/26/27) is configured for assembly between the flanges and the tab for holding elongated members (Teramoto, 3A/3B/2A/2B) within the first opening.
Regarding Claim 6 & 16, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose the front part includes a round slot on one side of the central groove (opening, see annotated Figures 1 & 6 below) and an upper hook (Teramoto, 351) on a second side of the central groove.
Regarding Claim 7 & 17, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose the track includes a plurality of grooves (Teramoto, Para. 84-89) and the slider part includes a tab (Teramoto, Para. 84-89) configured to be received in a selected one of the plurality of grooves to hold the slider part a desired distance from the first part (Teramoto, Para. 84-89).
Regarding Claim 8 & 17, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose a stopper (Teramoto, 43) that is configured to fit between the slider part and the track for holding the slider part in a desired position on the track (Para. 84-89).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose the first part, the base and the slider are separate parts (Teramoto, Figures 1-4).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Teramoto and Crorey disclose the first part and the base are a single integral part (Teramoto, Figures 1-4).
Regarding claims 18-20, if a prior art, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily describe a device capable of performing the steps of the method or process, then the device claimed will be considered to be inherent by the prior art process or method. When the prior art process or method is the same as a process or method described in the specification for describing the claimed device, it can be assumed the process or method will inherently describe the claimed device capable of performing the different steps of the process or method. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02
PNG
media_image1.png
460
569
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
529
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
591
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 KATHARINE KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-3398. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-6pm 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, KHOA HUYNH can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/KATHARINE G KANE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732