DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 25th November 26th 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 7, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites the phrase “the main body”. For the purpose of consistency, either “main body” or “main body portion” should be selected.
Claim 10 recites the phrase “cross-section area.” The phrase should be replaced with “cross-sectional area.”
Claim 17 recites the phrase “the main body”. For the purpose of consistency, either “main body” or “main body portion” should be selected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
Claim 10, line 1 recites the phrase “leverage element.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 3-5, 13-15 and 20 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 3 recites the phrase “one or more force”. This claim is deemed indefinite because “one or more” contradicts the singular “force.”
Claim 13 recites the phrase “one or more force”. This claim is deemed indefinite because “one or more” contradicts the singular “force.”
Claim 20 recites the phrase “generally circular.” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether the top and bottom surfaces are circular or not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nelson (US 2013/0327184).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a cap remover (100) comprising:
a main body portion (104), said main body portion (104) include opposing top (see annotated diagram 1 below) and bottom surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 below); a plurality of holes (146; Figs. 1, 4) extending from said top surface (see annotated diagram 1 below) to said bottom surface (see annotated diagram 1 below), said holes (146) defined by a plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 below) of the main body portion (104);
a plurality of thumb tabs (see annotated diagram 2 below) extending from the top surface (see annotated diagram 1 below); and
a receiving edge (142, 144) extending from the bottom surface (see annotated diagram 1 below; Fig. 1), the receiving edge (142, 144) having an inner surface (see annotated diagram 1 below);
wherein the receiving edge (142, 144) is configured to engage with a cap (214) of a can (209; Figs. 5 and 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram 1
PNG
media_image2.png
358
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Diagram 2
Regarding claim 2, Nelson discloses further comprising texturing features (148) positioned along the inner surface (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the receiving edge (142, 144).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson discloses wherein the texturing features (148) are configured to engage with the cap (214) of the paint can (209) and transmit one or more force to said paint can (209; para. [0020], [0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson discloses wherein said receiving edge (142, 144) further includes an interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) said interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) being coextensive with at least one of said plurality of holes (146; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson discloses wherein said interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) includes at least one interrupt surface (see annotated diagram 3 below), said interrupt surface (see annotated diagram 3 below) being coextensive with at least one of said plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the main body portion (104).
PNG
media_image3.png
396
584
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Diagram 3
Regarding claim 6, Nelson discloses wherein each thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) further comprises: a first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above), wherein said first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above) is configured to transfer a force applied to the thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) to said receiving edge (142, 144).
Regarding claim 7, Nelson discloses wherein each thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) is positioned around a central axis (see annotated diagram 2 above) of the main body (104), such that applying a force to the first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above) of each of the tabs (see annotated diagram 2 above) results in a moment about a central axis (see annotated diagram 2 above) of the cap remover (100; para. [0022]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Nelson discloses wherein the direction of the moment is counter-clockwise (220) when the receiving edge (142, 144) is engaged with cap (214) of a paint can (209; para. [0022]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 10, Nelson discloses further comprising a leverage element (102; Fig 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 11-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 2013/0327184).
Regarding claim 11, Nelson discloses a cap remover (100) comprising:
a top surface (see annotated diagram 1 above);
a bottom surface (see annotated diagram 1 above);
a first (146) and second hole (146) extending from said top surface (see annotated diagram 1 above) to said bottom surface (see annotated diagram 1 above; Figs. 1, 4), said holes (146) defined by a plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the main body portion (104);
a first and second thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) extending from the top surface (see annotated diagram 1 above; Fig, 1); and
a receiving edge (142, 144) extending from the bottom surface (see annotated diagram 1 below; Fig. 1), the receiving edge (142, 144) having an inner surface (see annotated diagram 1 below);
wherein the receiving edge (142, 144) is configured to engage with a cap (214) of a can (209; Figs. 5 and 7).
Nelson fails to disclose wherein the cross-section area of said holes is larger at the top surface than at the bottom surface.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the cross-section area of said holes, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Nelson further fails to disclose each thumb tab positioned approximate to the edge of the corresponding hole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust two of the thumb tabs to be positioned approximate the edge of the corresponding hole, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.__
Regarding claim 12, Nelson discloses further comprising texturing features (148) positioned along the inner surface (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the receiving edge (142, 144).
Regarding claim 13, Nelson discloses wherein the texturing features (148) are configured to engage with the cap (214) of the paint can (209) and transmit one or more force to said paint can (209; para. [0020], [0022], [0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Nelson discloses wherein said receiving edge (142, 144) further includes an interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) said interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) being coextensive with at least one of said plurality of holes (146; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Nelson discloses wherein said interrupt (see annotated diagram 2 above) includes at least one interrupt surface (see annotated diagram 3 above), said interrupt surface (see annotated diagram 3 below) being coextensive with at least one of said plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the main body portion (104).
Regarding claim 16, Nelson discloses wherein each thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) further comprises: a first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above), wherein said first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above) is configured to transfer a force applied to the thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) to said receiving edge (142, 144).
Regarding claim 17, Nelson discloses wherein each thumb tab (see annotated diagram 2 above) is positioned around a central axis (see annotated diagram 2 above) of the main body (104), such that applying a force to the first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above) of each of the tabs (see annotated diagram 2 above) results in a moment about a central axis (see annotated diagram 2 above) of the cap remover (100; para. [0022]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 18, Nelson discloses wherein the direction of the moment is counter-clockwise (220) when the receiving edge (142, 144) is engaged with cap (214) of a paint can (209; para. [0022]; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 20, Nelson discloses wherein the top and bottom surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) are generally circular (Figs. 1-2).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 9 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 9, Nelson (US 2013/0327184) is the most relevant prior art.
Nelson discloses said first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above), and one of said plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the main body (104).
Nelson fails to disclose wherein said first surface is coextensive with at least one of said plurality of interior surfaces of the main body portion.
Regarding claim 19, Nelson (US 2013/0327184) is the most relevant prior art.
Nelson discloses said first surface (see annotated diagram 3 above), and one of said plurality of interior surfaces (see annotated diagram 1 above) of the main body (104).
Nelson fails to disclose wherein said first surface is coextensive with at least one of said plurality of interior surfaces of the main body portion.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
14. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731