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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-14, 16, 18-21 are pending. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn. Claims 16, 18 are currently amended. Claims 19-21 are new.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: consider--wherein the hose attachment is configured to receive a water hose, wherein the water hose is a garden water hose--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: consider -- wherein molded container is constructed from a hard plastic material--.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: consider -- wherein the first broad wall includes a threaded hose attachment opening positioned on the first broad wall and not on a plurality of lateral end walls--
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) 19 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 20060213544 A1) in view of Ruzumna (US 20060108238 A1), Toda (JP 2007245134 A) and Baker (US 20040050732 A1).
(claim 19 is addressed first as the independent claim)
PNG
media_image1.png
746
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2a (Schmitt)
With respect to claim 19, Schmitt discloses:
An apparatus for cleaning a paint brush ([0001]), comprising:
a molded container (one piece molded plastic form being an enclosure 20, fig. 2a, [0026]; examiner notes that “molded” is a product by process limitation, which is addressed to further prosecution, but only a product that appears to be molded is needed to meet the limitation see MPEP 2113) having:
a first broad side wall (external surface 28, left side instance of reference character, fig. 5; [0028]; see also ann. fig .2a);
a second broad side wall opposite the first broad side wall (external surface 28, right side instance of reference character, fig. 5; [0028]; see also ann. fig .2a);
two lateral end walls extending between the first and second broad side walls (lateral end walls as in ann. fig. 2a) ;
a bottom wall including a bottom panel positioned between tapered side walls (bottom wall with bottom panel/surface, ann. fig. 2a, between tapered side walls [which are interpreted to be the inner surfaces of the container one of which is 27, fig. 2a, that corresponds to the second broad side wall; [0037]);
and an open upper end defining an upper opening sized to receive bristles of a paint brush (at 26, fig. 2a; [0045] it can receive bristles, the brush does not have go all the way, and can receive bristles of a smaller sized brush as well);
wherein the first broad side wall includes integrally molded threads defining a hose attachment opening (threads at hose connection 42, fig. 2a; [0033], molded in the flange as in [0033], examiner notes that “integrally molded” is a product by process limitation, which is addressed to further prosecution, but only a product that appears to be molded is needed to meet the limitation see MPEP 2113); wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned on the first broad side wall and not on either of the lateral end walls (see arrangement in figs. 2a and 3, the hose attachment 42 is not positioned on the lateral end walls)
and wherein the first and second broad side walls taper inwardly from the upper opening toward the bottom wall (see side view in fig. 3 of the angled downward broad side walls),
wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned vertically above the bottom panel (see hose attachment 42 above bottom panel annotated in fig. 2a above)
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose wherein the second broad side wall includes a plurality of molded projections arranged in rows and extending outwardly to form a comb surface; wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded projection, wherein drain holes are formed through the bottom panel of the container positioned between the tapered side walls and arranged in at least one horizontal row.
Ruzumna, in the same filed of endeavor, related to cleaning of paint brushes ([0001]), teaches of an arrangement including projections and extending outwardly to form a comb surface (24, fig. 4; [0025]; the projections are located opposite an opening 33, fig. 4, which is provided with a treaded cap as in [0029], see threads engaging with cap in figs. 2-4 - examiner notes that analogously the second broad side of Schmitt is provided opposite threaded opening Schmitt 42, fig. 2a), wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded projections (see fig. 2, part of the threaded opening 33, fig. 2 is below the projections, meeting the limitations, and this appears consistent with the placement in instant figs. 8-9 in that it does not appear that the hose opening is completely below the projections [there is no side view of apparatus in the instant drawings]). Ruzumna teaches that this arrangement can allow separating adhered bristles of the brush ([0029,0032]), and reduces the time needed to clean the brush ([0025-0026]).
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 Schmitt to such the second broad side wall includes a plurality of molded projections arranged in rows and extending outwardly to form a comb surface; wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded projections and above the bottom panel; wherein drain holes are formed through the bottom panel of the container positioned between the tapered side walls and arranged in at least one horizontal row; using the teachings of Ruzumna for the purpose of allowing separation of adhered bristles, and reducing the time needed to clean the brush.
To address the limitation that the projections in Ruzumna are molded, set forth in MPEP§ 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. The examiner notes that, although Schmitt addresses the “molding” aspect claimed with regard to the water hose, the claim is not limited to having the recited parts being formed as “molded” parts or by a molding method, but rather the structure implied by being “molded”. The examiner also finds the comb arrangement of Ruzumna to be a structure implied by the process of molding (protruding comb shaped posts).
Toda, in the same field of endeavor, relating to paint brush accessories, teaches of providing projections used to clean a brush, arranged in rows [plural] (comb section 2 in fig. 2; [0009], fig. 6 also shows 2 rows and is described in [0013]). Toda teaches that this arrangement prevents the bristles from sticking together in well used brushes ([0004] - “ with well-used brushes, a small amount of paint remains even if not completely cleaned, causing the bristles to stick together and making it difficult to fray the bristles”).
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 Schmitt such that the projections are arranged in plural rows, as taught by Toda, for complete cleaning, preventing bristles from sticking together and making it difficult to fray the bristles.
Baker, in the same field of endeavor, relating to brushes and accessories for brushes, teaches of providing a lower portion, that is tapered, with drain holes, wherein drain holes are formed through the bottom panel of the container positioned between the tapered side walls and arranged in at least one horizontal row; (see tapered shape in fig. 1, with drainage holes 22, fig. 1 and 4; [0028], on a bottom panel, the examiner acknowledges that the reference refers to the holes being placed on the upper portion, however the orientation of the apparatus is relative depending on how it is held, and in this case, the holes 22 of Baker would be positioned consistent with the claim language, and with Schmitt, being on a tapered end that is opposite to an opening [shown in 24, fig. 2 of Schmitt, opening described in [0029] of Schmitt] where the brush handle extends). Baker teaches this arrangement allows the brush to dry more quickly after being cleaned ([0028]), and that drying the brush prevents mold and mildew ([0027], it is noted that [0027] describes side holes 20, fig. 1, which allow for air circulation).
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 Schmitt to include additional holes on a bottom panel, to allow the brush to dry more quickly after being cleaned, as taught by Baker, which would prevent mold and mildew.
With respect to claim 16, Schmitt, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 19 above, and further teaches wherein the water hose is a garden water hose (garden water hose not explicitly claimed, as claim 1 recites “threads molded in a fashion to receive a water hose” which is functional, however Schmitt, [0030-0033] describes a “standard garden hose” 39, shown in fig. 2, which is connected to the threads).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 20060213544 A1) in view of Ruzumna (US 20060108238 A1), Baker (US 20040050732 A1), and Toda (JP 2007245134 A), and further in view of Stevens (US 20120175278 A1).
With respect to claim 18, Schmitt, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 19 above, and further teaches the container holder is constructed from a plastic material (Schmitt, one-piece molded plastic in [0028]), however does not explicitly teach that the plastic material is a hard plastic material).
Stevens, in the same field of endeavor, relating to brushes and accessories for brushes, teaches that it is preferred to use durable/rigid [hard] plastic, as a material for containers that store painting tools (“Materials preferred for the box include durable plastic, such that the container is sufficiently rigid and durable, while providing the ability to be rinsed clean once emptied of tools.” [0030]), providing that such material can be easy to rinse and is durable ([0030]).
MPEP 2144.07 provides that “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination”.
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 Schmitt, such that the plastic material is a hard [rigid] plastic material, because such material is recognized as suitable for holding painting tools, as taught by Stevens, because it is durable, and can be rinsed when needed.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 20060213544 A1) in view of Baker (US 20040050732 A1), Ruzumna (US 20060108238 A1), and Brinsmead (US 20090095644 A1).
With respect to claim 20, Schmitt discloses:
An apparatus for cleaning a paint brush ([0001]), comprising:
a molded plastic container (one piece molded plastic form being an enclosure 20, fig. 2a, [0026]; examiner notes that “molded” is a product by process limitation, which is addressed to further prosecution, but only a product that appears to be molded is needed to meet the limitation see MPEP 2113) having:
an open upper end configured to receive bristles of a paint brush (at 26, fig. 2a; [0045] it can receive bristles, the brush does not have go all the way, and can receive bristles of a smaller sized brush as well);
a first broad wall (external surface 28, left side instance of reference character, fig. 5; [0028]; see also ann. fig .2a for first broad side wall);
a second broad wall opposite the first broad wall (external surface 28, right side instance of reference character, fig. 5; [0028]; see also ann. fig .2a for second broad side wall);
a bottom panel (bottom wall with bottom panel/surface, ann. fig. 2a, between tapered side walls [which are interpreted to be the inner surfaces of the container one of which is 27, fig. 2a, that corresponds to the second broad side wall; [0037]);
wherein the first broad wall includes a threaded hose attachment opening positioned on the first broad wall and not on either lateral end wall (see arrangement in figs. 2a and 3, the hose attachment 42 is not positioned on the lateral end walls)
and
wherein the container tapers inwardly from the open upper end toward the bottom panel. (see side view in fig. 3 of the angled downward broad side walls).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose a bottom panel including a plurality of drain holes arranged in two horizontal rows parallel to each other; wherein the second broad wall includes a plurality of molded comb projections; wherein the threaded hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded comb projections and above the drain holes.
Baker, in the same field of endeavor, relating to brushes and accessories for brushes, teaches of providing a lower portion, that is tapered, with drain holes, wherein drain holes are formed a bottom panel including a plurality of drain holes arranged in a horizontal row (see tapered shape in fig. 1, with drainage holes 22, fig. 1 and 4; [0028], on a bottom panel, the examiner acknowledges that the reference refers to the holes being placed on the upper portion, however the orientation of the apparatus is relative depending on how it is held, and in this case, the holes 22 of Baker would be positioned consistent with the claim language, and with Schmitt, being on a tapered end that is opposite to an opening [shown in 24, fig. 2 of Schmitt, opening described in [0029] of Schmitt] where the brush handle extends). Baker teaches this arrangement allows the brush to dry more quickly after being cleaned ([0028]), and that drying the brush prevents mold and mildew ([0027], it is noted that [0027] describes side holes 20, fig. 1, which allow for air circulation).
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 Schmitt to include additional holes on a bottom portion, to allow the brush to dry more quickly after being cleaned, as taught by Baker, which would prevent mold and mildew. The arrangement would result in wherein the threaded hose attachment opening is positioned vertically above the drain holes as the drain holes are on a lowermost surface of the container.
Brinsmead, in the same field of endeavor, relating to paint brush accessories, teaches of an arrangement where the container includes a bottom panel including a plurality of drain holes arranged in two horizontal rows parallel to each other (drain holes 24, fig. 3, arranged in two horizontal rows on a bottom panel/surface; [0022]). Brinsmead teaches this arrangement allows the brushes to drip dry and be maintained in a serviceable condition, ready for use ([0003]).
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 Schmitt, such the plurality of drain holes are arranged in two horizontal rows parallel to each other, as taught by Brinsmead, to allow brushes to drip dry and be maintained in a serviceable condition, ready for use.
Ruzumna, in the same filed of endeavor, related to cleaning of paint brushes ([0001]), teaches of wherein a second broad wall includes a plurality of molded comb projections (24, fig. 4; [0025]; the projections are located opposite an opening 33, fig. 4, which is provided with a treaded cap as in [0029], see threads engaging with cap in figs. 2-4 - examiner notes that analogously the second broad side of Schmitt is provided opposite threaded opening Schmitt 42, fig. 2a); wherein the threaded hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded comb projections(see fig. 2, part of the threaded opening 33, fig. 2 is below the projections, meeting the limitations, and this appears consistent with the placement in instant figs. 8-9 in that it does not appear that the hose opening is completely below the projections [there is no side view of the apparatus in the instant drawings]). Ruzumna teaches that this arrangement can allow separating adhered bristles of the brush ([0029,0032]), and reduces the time needed to clean the brush ([0025-0026]).
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 Schmitt to such the second broad side wall includes a plurality of molded projections arranged in rows and extending outwardly to form a comb surface; wherein the hose attachment opening is positioned vertically below the molded projections, using the teachings of Ruzumna for the purpose of allowing separation of adhered bristles, and reducing the time needed to clean the brush.
To address the limitation that the projections in Ruzumna are molded, set forth in MPEP§ 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. The examiner notes that, although Schmitt addresses the “molding” aspect claimed with regard to the water hose, the claim is not limited to having the recited parts being formed as “molded” parts or by a molding method, but rather the structure implied by being “molded”. The examiner also finds the comb arrangement of Ruzumna to be a structure implied by the process of molding (protruding comb shaped posts).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt (US 20060213544 A1) in view of Baker (US 20040050732 A1), Ruzumna (US 20060108238 A1), and Brinsmead (US 20090095644 A1), and further in view of Toda (JP 2007245134 A).
With respect to claim 21, Schmitt, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of molded projections form a rectangular comb region centered on the second broad side wall (examiner notes that as long as a rectangular region can be drawn with the protrusions enclosed, the claim limitations are met even though there may be protrusions outside the rectangular region; for the purposes of “centered”, the examiner will interpret the meaning consistent with instant fig. 9 in that the protrusions do not have to be geometrically perfectly centered on the second broad side wall).
Toda, in the same field of endeavor, relating to paint brush accessories, teaches of providing projections used to clean a brush, arranged in rows [plural] (comb section 2 in fig. 2; [0009], fig. 6 also shows 2 rows [in a rectangular arrangement] and is described in [0013]). Toda teaches that this arrangement prevents the bristles from sticking together in well used brushes ([0004] - “with well-used brushes, a small amount of paint remains even if not completely cleaned, causing the bristles to stick together and making it difficult to fray the bristles”).
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 Schmitt such that the projections are arranged in plural rows, thus forming a rectangular comb region centered on the second broad side wall, as taught by Toda, for complete cleaning, preventing bristles from sticking together and making it difficult to fray the bristles. Such an arrangement would be centered as it would be opposite a centered hose attachment (see Ruzumna, as applied in the rejection of claim 20 above, where projections 24, fig. 4; [0025]; the projections are located opposite an opening 33, fig. 4, which is provided with a treaded cap as in [0029]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner comments regarding the spatial relationship between the hose connection and the comb, that is argued by the applicant to be provided with adequate support on pages 11-12 of the response. Regarding that, the examiner finds that there would be no written description support issues with the current claims, however, an amendment that the hose connector is completely below [or similar language that defining no vertical overlap] the hose connector has potential to lack written description, and that there is no side view in the instant figures that would provide for definite support for such a feature. The examiner further references MPEP 2125 which provides that drawings [in the prior art] are not to scale. While the examiner understands that the standard for written description and anticipation are different, the examiner respectfully submits that written description support may not exist, if given a prior art reference with the same disclosure content as the instant application, such prior art disclosure is unable to anticipate the current claims (this likewise applies to any attempt to combine multiple embodiments). Applicant is invited to comment on with regards to the examiner’s observations.
The applicant argues (response page 13) that Schmitt does not disclose the claimed structural relationship between the comb projections, hose inlet, and drain holes. As noted by the applicant, the examiner never indicated such. The applicant further argues that Ruzumna does not have the claimed structural relationship, in that the comb projections are disposed opposite a hose inlet. In regards to that, the examiner comments that the comb projections in Ruzumna are indeed opposite a threaded inlet [analogous to a hose inlet], and that such a threaded inlet is partially below the projections. As such, the claim limitations are met. Regarding Baker, the applicant notes that the drainage holes are not in horizontal rows [plural]. As in initial observation, claim 19 only requires one row “arranged in at least one horizontal row”. To the arguments as in apples to claim 20, Brinsmead provides for a bottom panel, with a plurality of holes arranged in two rows, for the advantage of allowing brushes to drip dry and be maintained in a serviceable condition, ready for use. The examiner submits that this combination would result in the claimed structural relationship, as addressed with respect to each specific reference Ruzumna and Baker, above in view of the applicant’s specific arguments.
Regarding claim 18, the examiner understands this to be referring to claim 21, which is dependent on claim 20. As for that Ruzumna provides that the posts are centered [which is broadly interpreted because the examiner submits instant fig. 9 does not show it perfectly centered), opposite the threaded inlet. To address that it is a rectangular area, Toda provides for rectangular posts, arranged in [at least] two rows, forming a rectangle, for making it easier to clean the brush, prevent the brush from sticking together and allowing the bristles to be frayed. As for Baker, the examiner did not rely on that reference for a comb structure, but for the drainage holes.
On page 14 of the response the applicant argued that the examiner used improper hindsight to reconstruct the claim. The examiner disagrees, as the examiner based the rejection on the teachings of the prior art, and not the instant disclosure. The examiner notes that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
No specific arguments were presented for the other dependent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached on 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723