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 Interpretation
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the suction means” in line 7 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although “a suction means” is recited in line 4 of claim 1, it is recited in the phrase “adapted to have a suction means” which does not positively recite the suction means. Therefore, “a suction means” has not been positively recited in the claim prior to its referral back to itself in line 7/
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “suction means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fynbo (US20200178716A1) and further in view of Armstrong (US20240400258A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fynbo teaches a bowl assembly for hair product comprising (see annotated fig.2A below for the bowl assembly),
(a) a flexible receptacle adapted to receive hair product (see annotated fig.2A below for the flexible receptacle capable of receiving hair product; it is noted that “adapted to” is a configured to language and the prior art has to be capable of performing that function); and
(b) a flexible support structure having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is adapted to have a suction means (see annotated fig.2A below for the flexible support structure with proximal and distal end and the proximal end is capable of having a suction means see fig.2C for the suction cups 212A at the distal end)
wherein the proximal end of the flexible support structure engages a support surface, and the suction means engages the support surface with a sufficient force to support the flexible receptacle (see annotated fig.2A and fig.2C wherein the proximal end of the flexible support structure and the suction cups 212A can engage a support surface and the section cups engages with the surface with a sufficient force to the support the receptacle). Fynbo does not teach wherein the distal end further comprises an opening that is adapted to receive the flexible receptacle.
Armstrong teaches wherein the distal end further comprises an opening that is adapted to receive the flexible receptacle (fig.1 shows the distal end of the tray 110 with opening 116A that is adapted to receive the receptacle 119). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flexible support structure and receptacle disclosed by Fynbo by adding the teaching of opening with a removable receptacle as disclosed by Armstrong in order to make the receptacle easily removable from the entire assembly to wash the compartment after using or prepare as need. “In order to address these concerns, the present invention includes a modular food storage container having a removable compartment that may be easily separated from the primary container, microwaved or otherwise prepared on its own, and then reattached to the primary container so that all of the stored food is easily accessible and preparable as needed.” (0004, Armstrong)
Annotated fig.2C of Fynbo
PNG
media_image1.png
509
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the references as applied to claim 1 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 1 further teaches wherein the proximal end of the flexible support structure moves relative to the distal end from a range 00 to 3600 (annotated fig.2A above the flexible support structure can move relative to the distal end form 0 degree to 360 similar to as shown in fig.8A).
Regarding claim 3, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 2 further teaches wherein the proximal end of the flexible support structure engages the support surface at an angle having a range from 00 to 1800 (annotated fig.2A above the flexible support structure can move relative to the distal end form 0 degree to 180 similar to as shown in fig.8A and stop the support surface once it hits 180).
Regarding claim 4, the references as applied to claim 3 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 3 further teaches wherein the flexible receptacle further comprises a top rim and tapered sides (fig.1 shows the receptable 119 with the top rim 119c with tapered sides).
Regarding claim 5, the references as applied to claim 4 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 4 further teaches wherein the opening of the distal end of the flexible support structure further comprises a top edge and bottom edge whereby the bottom edge is defined by the tapered sides of the flexible receptacle (fig.1 shows the opening 116A of the distal end of the tray that comprises a top and bottom edge and the bottom edge id defined by the tapered sides of the receptable 119).
Regarding claim 6, the references as applied to claim 5 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 5 further teaches wherein flexible receptacle is friction fit into the opening of the distal end of the flexible support structure (fig.1 the receptable 119 is friction fit into the opening 116A).
Regarding claim 7, the references as applied to claim 6 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 6 further teaches wherein be flexible support structure comprises a topside and a bottom side (fig.2A above shows the topside and bottom side is on the opposite of it).
Regarding claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 7 further teaches wherein the suction means is a series of suction cups positioned on the bottom side of the flexible support structure (fig.2C shows suction cups 212A at the bottom side).
Regarding claim 9, the references as applied to claim 8 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 8 further teaches wherein the suction cups are deformable and engage an uneven support surface (fig.2C the suction cups 212A are deformable and engage uneven support surface as seen in fig.8A).
Regarding claim 10, the references as applied to claim 9 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Fynbo as modified in claim 9 further teaches wherein the flexible receptacle and the flexible support structure are integral to one another (fig.2A as modified above the receptable and the support structure are integral to one another).
Conclusion
See PTO-892 for 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 PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735