Patent and Invention Help Forum

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ProSeToday

Pages: [1]
1
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Three in one...patent question
« on: March 12, 2018, 03:06:25 PM »
Thanks Brad for the reply. The examiner has found some stuff allowable :) and is now willing to work with me. Have updated my claims per their recommendations and have another meeting tomorrow to discuss them. Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Thanks again for your help present and past. 

2
Patent Questions and Advice / Three in one...patent question
« on: March 11, 2018, 04:39:35 PM »
Hi Brad,

Have three embodiments disclosed in my patent specification, can a single independent claim contain different elements from each of the three embodiments ? Examiner is saying no, but thought a recent court case says yes. It seems a POSITA having seen all embodiments could imagine picking and choosing the elements they want to use.

Thanks for your time.

3
Thanks Brad for your thoughts.

4
Thanks Brad so much for the help. Have had multiple conversations with the examiner and have requested help per "the Applicant respectfully requests the constructive assistance and suggestions of the Examiner pursuant to M.P.E.P.  § 2173.02 and § 707.07(j)" but to no avail.
 
It sucks that I cannot define a cavity even though it is inherent in a container. The specification states the container is completely filled with paintballs and further states the paintballs are secured from moving due to the amount of paintballs in the closed container.
 
To add the paintballs structurally would this work ?

a closed container enclosing a cube and a plurality of paintballs, said paintballs configured to substantially occupy all of the free space within said container and tightly contained allowing only negligible movement in said container;

Thanks again.

5
Thanks Brad for the response and you suggestions. I'm trying to get an important device limitation that is key to the whole invention, but the examiner says "the amount of paintballs do not further limit the claimed container since it does relate to the structure of the claimed apparatus". I'm thinking I'm not using the correct "magic words" yet. My specification and drawings indicate the paintballs completely fills the container and the paintballs are secured from moving around inside the container once the container is closed.
 
While lack of open space and a full container matters, what I need are the paintballs to be immovable:

an amount of paintballs effectively being substantially fixed and immovable when placed inside said container when closed, due to substantially little open space remaining in the closed container and the confinement offered by closed said container;

Is this more straightforward than use of cavity and areas ? thanks again.

6
Hi,
Trying to claim a device using an amount and open space matters. Could any of the follow hypo claims work ?
Thanks.

an apparatus for coloring a rubber cube, comprising:

a open container;

a lid for container;

a rubber cube placed in the bottom of said container;

a coloring means, said means comprises a plurality of paintballs that fits as a unit into the available open space of said container containing said rubber cube leaving little to no open space when said container is closed, wherein ...

or

a coloring means, said means comprises a plurality of paintballs such that the amount of said paintballs fills the available open space of said container containing said rubber cube leaving little to no open space when said container is closed, wherein ...

or

an apparatus for coloring a rubber cube, comprising:

a lid for container;

a rubber cube;

a plurality of at least one paintball surrounding and encapsulating said rubber cube;

a container is of a size to receive and contain the said paintballs and said rubber cube leaving little to no open space remaining inside said container when closed, wherein...



Thanks again for your thoughts.

7
Thanks Brad for the thoughtful reply. I do plan on contacting the examiner, but will first submit another declaration. I have talked with the examiner multiple times concerning other combinations that would cause the prior art when combined to be inoperable and fail. The examiner had suggested a declaration consisting of various test to prove my points. The most recent office action reflects those tests were persuasive, but now new challenges. I think the examiner is doing their best, but believe they don't know have the technical knowledge needed for this application. If you have time, I would appreciate and pay you to review my declaration before submitting it. Thanks again.

8
Hi, Looking for some thoughts: The examiner says POSITA would be motivated to substitute a container with a container with removable lid in order to prevent a cooking mess shown in the primary prior art. The prior art shows the cooking mess did not occur during cooking, but after the user added a topping to the cooked item and was sloppy. If the container used the lid during cooking, the lid would have to be removed to access the cooked item before the topping could be applied. Removing the lid creates the opportunity for the user to be sloppy again hence the lid would not help prevent a mess and believe there is no motivation to combine.
 
Further, the cooked item is a cake and found prior art in the form of recipes (can add as a declaration) using the same container with lid, the recipes request cakes be cooked uncovered. Also think it is common knowledge by POSITA, that cakes should not be covered while being baked.
   
Thanks for your thoughts.

9
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Patent and Unexpected results....
« on: March 05, 2017, 05:47:47 PM »
Thanks Brad for your patience and showing me another way of looking at the invention and how to approach the claims. Really appreciate your time and the website.

10
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Patent and Unexpected results....
« on: March 03, 2017, 02:27:15 PM »
Thanks Brad for your helpful response. Sorry I made the mistake of talking about properties and not results as in "unexpected results" (duh). Using your advice I think a better hypo would be:

Prior art Z combines elements A and B in a container and when heated makes result R1. The claimed invention combines elements A and B in a sealed container and a particular arrangement of elements A and B. When the container is heated it produces result R2.
 
R1 appears as a mixture of clumps of element A intermixed with element B. R2 however, appears as all element B's completely coated in the container with liquid element A. Liquid element A not present in result R1 nor expected to exist according to test results.

An easy way to imagine the difference of R1/R2 is to think of R1 as a container of rice krispes with a few melted marshmallows thrown in versus R2 being is a bowl of rice krispie treats where all rice krispes in the bowl are coated with a marshmallow/butter solution.

Thoughts?
Thanks.

11
Patent Questions and Advice / Patent and Unexpected results....
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:58:00 PM »
Hi,
Still not making any progress with examiner concerning an apparatus claim in spite of the very helpful information I have received from this site. I have done some additional testing and will submit the results in a declaration. I'm thinking of claiming "unexpected results" to disprove 103 obviousness.

Example:
Have a generic heat safe container and lid, fill container with a layer of element A and fill remaining container space with element B, leaving no head space in container, seal container with lid. Heat container for a period of time.

Element A, when heated, is known in prior art, by a POSA and verified with my testing as having properties P1-P3. The above configuration however produces properties P4 and P5 for element A which are unexpected results and are not known to exist in the prior art or by a POSA.

The examiner in the office action, cited proof of obviousness, by claiming that the prior art using element A had the same structure as the claimed invention and then inserted my claim language about the resulting P4 and P5 properties as though the prior art accomplished them. Having acquired the prior art, I have tested the device and properties P4 and P5 do not occur. I will document the test results to the declaration.
 
My understanding is if known elements, using known methods, produces unexpected results then it not obvious.
Trying to get an apparatus claim. Thoughts?
Thanks.

12
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Claim ideas needed...
« on: February 08, 2017, 04:04:51 PM »
Thanks Brad. Knew the securing of the balls was important, but was struggling how to claim it given the examiner's comment. The process of just writing up the information for your site and your initial feedback really helped me focus on the invention. Thanks again and thanks for hosting your website.     

13
Patent Questions and Advice / Re: Claim ideas needed...
« on: February 08, 2017, 03:09:26 PM »
Thanks Brad for spending the time on your thoughtful reply. If you might indulge me a little bit more time would be appreciated.
 
The invention is about coating the tennis balls. If a ruby (let say known to expand when heated like a balloon) is placed in the container and surrounded by the balls and the balls are not covered/secured, when the container is heated the ruby expands and pushes out the balls.

If however the balls are secured/covered from moving before heating the container then something unexpected happens. As the ruby attempts to expand by pushing against the secured balls, the expanding ruby breaks apart and the now expanding ruby pieces travel up the through the gaps in between the secured balls substantially coating the balls with expanded ruby material.

The prior art teaches about stabilizing a heated ruby. It has a base with a friction fit cover, the cover includes an arm that rests on top a sandwich using a ruby as the filler. The arm is designed and called out to help minimize the expansion of the ruby or the sandwich will fall apart (not wanted) as the ruby expands. A short heating time is used to further minimize ruby expansion. The prior art is not about coating and teaches ruby expansion is bad and must be restrained. The fiction fit is also not strong enough to hold the base and cover together if serious ruby expansion happens. It is also not known that ruby when heated and restrained can break apart and be used as a coating material.
 
Possible claim ?
1. A ball coating apparatus, the apparatus comprising:   
-a container having a base and sidewalls, the container configured to hold a plurality of balls;
- a ruby placed within the container and surrounded by the plurality of balls;
-a cover configured to removably secure the plurality of balls within the container such that the plurality of balls remain substantially in place when exposed to expanded ruby material, the cover comprising  XYZ; and
- wherein container is heated until the ruby substantially coats the plurality of balls.

Thanks again for the help.

14
Patent Questions and Advice / Claim ideas needed...
« on: February 08, 2017, 03:15:43 AM »
Hi, Just found your site and could use some claim help.
 
Looking for ways to claim an apparatus that secures tennis balls (hypo) from moving around in a container. Must handle two scenarios: 1) fill the container with tennis balls such that when the container is closed, little or no head space remains. 2) partially fill the container with tennis balls and a securing cover is placed inside the container over the top layer of the tennis balls.

Examiner says amount does not limit the container, which makes sense.

How about:

An apparatus comprising:

a sealable container, a securing means to prevent multiple tennis balls from moving inside said container, comprising a source of tennis balls that fills said container 100%, a lid to seal said container.

a sealable container, a securing means to prevent multiple tennis balls from moving inside said container, comprising a source of tennis balls that fills said container less than 100% and a securing cover placed inside said container on the top layer of said tennis balls.

Specification does not call out "securing means", but says the tennis balls are secured from moving inside said container and the cover is used to secure the tennis balls and reduce the overall amount of tennis balls in the container.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Pages: [1]
Menu Editor Pro 1.0.2 | Copyright 2014, Matthew Kerle