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 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 12, 17-19 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.
Regarding claims 12, 17, the recitation of “can comprise” renders the claim indefinite as if the metes and bounds of the invention requires the limitation or not.
Claim 18 is rejected by dependency of a rejected claim above.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation of “a stadium shaped aperture” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “stadium shaped aperture” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the underlying elongate member". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura TW 201505785 in view of Dallons US 4389912.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Kimura teaches a jewelry opening device 1 (fig. 6) comprising:
a first flat elongate member 3 having a proximal end and an opposing distal end, and a substantially perpendicularly angled tip 7 (figs. 10) on the proximal end of the first flat elongate member facing in a first direction;
a second flat elongate member 2 having a proximal end and an opposing distal end; the second flat elongate member 4 having a forked tongue tip 4 (fig. 9(h)) on the proximal end of the second flat elongate member facing in substantially a second direction, which is substantially opposite to the first direction;
a biasing member 12, and wherein the biasing member 12 is configured to bias the first 3 and second 2 flat elongate members towards each other in the first and second directions, and configured to continuously keep at least part of both of the distal ends in flush contact along planar surfaces of the first and second elongate members which are not contacted by the biasing member.
Kimura does not teach the forked tongue tip is at an obtusely angled forked tongue tip and the biasing member comprises a flat sliding longitudinal biasing member with a flat portion which lies in plane over a planar surface of the first or second flat elongate member between the proximal and distal end thereof, and a wrap-around portion which extends perpendicularly from the flat portion and encapsulates sides of the first and second flat elongate members and at least part of the planar surface of an opposing first or second flat elongate member which is not overlaid by the flat portion, and
wherein the biasing member is configured to bias the first and second flat elongate members towards each other in the first and second directions as the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member translates longitudinally in a direction from the distal ends towards the proximal ends of the first and second elongate members, and configured to continuously keep at least part of both of the distal ends in flush contact along planar surfaces of the first and second elongate members which are not contacted by the biasing member.
Dallons teaches a device 10 (figs. 1, 6) comprising: a first flat elongate member 12 having a proximal end and an opposing distal end, and an angled tip 17 on the proximal end of the first flat elongate member facing in a first direction; a second flat elongate member 14 having a proximal end and an opposing distal end, and an obtusely angled forked tongue tip 17 on the proximal end of the second flat elongate member facing in substantially a second direction, which is substantially opposite to the first direction. Dallons further teaches a flat sliding longitudinal biasing member 11 which comprises: a flat portion 30 which lies in plane over a planar surface of the first or second flat elongate member between the proximal and distal end thereof, and a wrap-around portion [U-shaped portion between 30 and 31, “sliding clamp 11 is illustrated particularly in FIGS. 1 and 5. It consists of two parallel portions 30, 31, through which extends an elongated longitudinal slit 32. Two parallel portions 30 and 31 are interconnected on one side by a bridge to form a generally U-shaped structure”] which extends perpendicularly from the flat portion and encapsulates sides of the first and second flat elongate members and at least part of the planar surface of an opposing first or second flat elongate member which is not overlaid by the flat portion, and wherein the biasing member is configured to bias the first and second flat elongate members towards each other in the first and second directions as the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member translates longitudinally in a direction from the distal ends towards the proximal ends of the first and second elongate members, and configured to continuously keep at least part of both of the distal ends in flush contact along planar surfaces of the first and second elongate members which are not contacted by the biasing member [see figs. 1, 6].
Thus, Kimura and Dallons each disclose a hand tool for small artifacts comprising a spring system to open and close jaws. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the biasing member of Dallons could have been substituted for the biasing member of Kimura because both the biasing members serve the purpose of providing a forcing bias to the tool to grasp small artifacts. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution as it at achieves the predictable result of allowing of control of the tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biasing member of Dallons for the biasing member of Kimura according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing control over the elongate members.
Regarding Claim 2, the modified Kimura further teaches the invention as claimed above. Kimura and Dallons further teach wherein the first flat elongate member and the second flat elongate member are longitudinally and/or laterally aligned with each other.
Regarding Claims 3, 5, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the first flat elongate member and the second flat elongate member each have a thickness of from 1/32 of an inch up to about 5/16 of an inch; and wherein the first and/or second flat elongate members each have a length of from about 2 inches up to about 6 inches
However, both Kimura and Dallons do teach wherein each of the first flat elongate member and the second flat elongate member have a thickness in a range that would be comfortable for a user’s hand.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate thickness as claimed thereby ensuring an appropriate force is required tor a standard user to manipulate the proximal ends of the flat elongate members and since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding Claim 8, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1. Dallons further teaches wherein the elongate members are made of a metal material selected from the group consisting of aluminum, steel, stainless steel, low carbon austenitic steel, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, and combinations thereof (col 4, In 21-29).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, Kimura and Dallons further teach wherein the proximal and distal ends of the elongate members are opposite longitudinal ends thereof.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1. Dallons further teaches wherein the obtusely angled forked tongue tip can comprise an angle of greater than 90 degrees and less than 180 degrees
Regarding claim 12, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the obtusely angled forked tongue tip can comprise an angle of about 115 degrees to about 150 degrees. However, Dallons does teach wherein the obtusely angled forked tongue tip can comprise an angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate angle as claimed thereby ensuring the proximal ends are able to properly grip the component to be manipulated and since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding Claims 13-14, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1. Kimura and Dallons further teach wherein the first direction being substantially opposite the second direction comprises wherein the angle of the obtusely angled forked tip and the substantially perpendicularly angled tip are within a difference in degrees of no more than 45 degrees or 5 degrees from each other, in terms of their respective angles [Both teach a 0-degree difference].
Regarding Claim 15, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the thickness of the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member in both its flat portion and its wrap around portion are from 1/32 of an inch up to about 5/16 of an inch. However, Dallons does teach wherein the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member has a thickness in both its flat portion and its wrap around portion.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized routine experimentation and design choices in order to have chosen an appropriate thickness as claimed thereby ensuring an appropriate force is required tor a standard user to manipulate the proximal ends of the flat elongate members and since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Regarding Claim 16, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, Dallons further teaches wherein the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member has a length less than that of the elongate members.
Regarding Claim 19, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, Dallons further teaches wherein the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member has a stadium shaped aperture along the flat portion, which post passes through the aperture and makes contact with the underlying elongate member.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura TW 201505785 in view of Dallons US 4389912 and in further view of Choi KR 102388477 B1.
Regarding Claim 4, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the first and/or second flat elongate members have a grooved gripping area along at least potion of their planar surface; wherein the first and second elongate members have the same tapering widths from the distal end to a border of the tips of the proximal ends.
Choi teaches a device (figs. 1-3) comprising a first flat elongate member 10 comprising a planar surface; a second flat elongate member 20, wherein the first and/or second flat elongate members have a grooved gripping area 40 along at least portion of their planar surface and wherein the first and second elongate members have the same tapering widths from the distal end to a border of tips of the proximal ends and biasing member 30 (figs. 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the grooved gripping area of ChoI on the first and/or second flat elongate members and wherein the first and second elongate members have the same tapering widths from the distal end to a border of tips of the proximal ends of the modified Kimura in order to allow a user better control over manipulation of the elongate members and for the proximal ends of the elongate members to reach into tighter spaces.
Regarding Claim 7, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 6, but does not specifically teach wherein the tapering width are from about 1/8 of an inch up to about 1/2 of an inch. However, Choi does teach wherein the flat elongate members have a tapering width
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design decisions regarding the tapering width of the flat elongate members fall within the ordinary skill in the art of one designing a jewelry opening device ensuring an appropriate force is required for a standard user to manipulate the proximal ends of the flat elongate members and since it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05 II A.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura TW 201505785 in view of Dallons US 4389912 and in further view of Stigenberg US 5,512,237 A.
Regarding Claim 9, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 8, but does not specifically teach wherein the elongate members are made of low carbon austenitic steel which contains chromium and has nickel and molybdenum as additional alloying elements.
Stigenberg teaches a member (col 1, In 42 - col 3, In 19; see above mentioned products formed from alloy); wherein the members are made of low carbon austenitic steel (col 1, In 42-60; col 2, In 47 - col 3, In 19) which contains chromium (col 2, In 42-61) and has nickel (col 2, In 42 - col 3, In 19) and molybdenum (col 2, In 48 - col 3, In 19) as additional alloying elements (col 1, In 42 - col 3, In 19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use low carbon austenitic steel of Stigenberg on the elongate members of the modified Kimura in order to ensure the elongate member does not bend easily.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura TW 201505785 in view of Dallons US 4389912 and in further view of Piaget 573,036.
Regarding Claim 17, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member can further comprise an elevated gripping element on a planar surface of the flat portion.
Piaget teaches a device (fig. 1) comprising a first flat elongate member A; a second flat elongate member B and a flat sliding longitudinal biasing member E comprising a flat portion; wherein the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member can further comprise an elevated gripping element on a planar surface of the flat portion (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the elevated gripping element of Piaget on the jewelry opening device of the modified Kimura in order to allow for easier movement of the flat sliding longitudinal biasing member by a user.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura TW 201505785 in view of Dallons US 4389912 and Piaget 573,036 and in further view of JP 31113063 U (JP063).
Regarding Claim 18, the modified Kimura teaches the jewelry opening device of claim 17, but fail to teach wherein the elevated gripping element is made of an elastomeric material selected from the group consisting of natural rubber, synthetic rubber, ethylene rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, EPDM rubber, polyisoprene rubber, butyl rubber, acrylonitrile butadiene rubber, silicone rubber, polyurethane, cork, and combinations thereof.
JP063 teach it was known to use rubber, plastic, or the like to surface portions of a jewelry opener [“[a]n anti-slip elastic material 8 made of rubber, plastic or the like is provided on at least the outer surface of the rear portion of the hook opening assisting tool 1”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any of the elastomer materials claimed in the modified Kimura in order to yield the predictable result of decreasing the slip of the finger when used.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights