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
In the Amended Claims of April 23, 2026, Claims 12, 17, 19 and 20 are amended. Claim 12 is amended. Claims 19 and 20 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Boese (US 2022/0134799).
Regarding Claim 12, Boese discloses a system comprising a paint tray (46) that may be made of metal (Paragraph 0029) with contours, a paint tray floor and a plurality of paint tray walls as shown in Figure 7. The liner/housing 12 may be used as a paint tray liner for a paint tray as discussed in Paragraphs 0029 and 0033. This liner has a flexible body (Paragraph 0020) made of an elastic silicone material, the flexible body having a front wall (20), a back wall (42), a floor (14), and two side walls (34, 36) with depths, wherein the front wall is shorter than the back wall and the depths of the side wall vary along a length of the liner housing. Boese also discloses a continuous liner lip (38) defining an open top portion of the liner, with said continuous liner lip having a continuous flat surface extending from the front wall, the back wall, and the two sidewalls.
Boese also discloses a lid (56) made of silicone material (Paragraph 0030) connected to the paint tray, the lid having a periphery (60) that extends downward with a lip that wraps around the at least one lip of the paint tray.
Regarding the additional limitations of April 23, 2026, as shown in Figure 7, the liner is configured to fit the paint tray contours. Please note that the claim does not specify WHICH contours are matched. As shown in Figure 7 of Boese, the corner contours of the tray and the liner are configured to match.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boese (US 2022/0134799).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, as disclosed in Boese Figure 6, the liner bottom wall is void of protruding structures. While in Figure 7, Boese discloses a paint tray having protruding structures, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the system including the tray may include or not include protrusions or be smooth as an obvious variation in the construction of the tray that would provide no unexpected results in the function of the liner and tray. Applicant has not indicated in the original description that the paint tray floor being void of protruding structures provides any non-obvious result or benefit to the function of the system. Furthermore, it is generally known in the art to provide a paint tray with or without such protrusions. Please see Jarecki (US 5533228) for a known paint tray lacking protruding structures.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boese (US 2022/0134799) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Killian (US 7083044).
Regarding Claim 17, Boese discloses the lid has a periphery that extends downward with a lip. Boese does not disclose the lid lip wraps around a lip of the paint tray. Rather, Boese does identify that the perimeter lip (60) of the cover (56) is extendable around and engagable with the perimeter wall (28) such that a substantially airtight seal is formed between the cover (56) and the perimeter wall (28) to prevent the drying out of paint located within the housing (12) (Paragraph 0030).
Killian discloses a similar paint tray (22) having a lip (26) and a flexible elastomeric cover (24) with a corresponding lip (32) configured to cover the open top portion of the pan and in full contact with the pan lip. Boese and Killian are analogous inventions in the art of flexible airtight lids for paint trays.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the paint tray and liner of Boese with the lip of Killian in order to provide a means to preserve and maintain paint within the tray and liner for extended periods of time without the paint drying out by engaging with the lip of the container body (26) (Killian Col. 7 Lines 50-60 and Col. 8 Lines 5-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Page 5, Applicant argues that a liner configured to fit the paint tray contours is not found in Boese. Applicant believes that the opposite is found in Boese wherein the smooth bottom of the liner does not fit within the ridged paint tray as seen in Figure 7.
Applicant is correct that Boese discloses a paint tray having protruding structures. However, this does not correspond to having a shape that is configured to fit the paint tray contours.
As shown in Figure 7 of Boese, the liner does indeed match the contours of the tray corners.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., no contour matching of the BOTTOM SURFACE of the liner to a FLAT top surface of the tray) this limitation is not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the liner of Boese may be used with differing trays and would provide no unexpected results in the functioning of the liner and tray regardless of the tray surface to hold and store paint.
Applicant provides affidavit evidence alleging an unexpected benefit or result of having the liner match the contours of the paint tray. In particular, this benefit provides for vacuum adherence of the liner to the paint tray and reduces sliding or movement of the liner.
However, this must be considered new matter, as such considerations are absent in the original disclosure. Furthermore, later-filed Applicant arguments are not analogous to the written disclosure and cannot be read into the Specification. Furthermore, anything creating a vacuum seal is not identified in the claim language.
Furthermore, the Examiner believes that a vacuum adhesion seal may be provided at the rim or edge interface between the liner and tray. The present claims do not require the liner bottom surface to be flat and configured to be in full contact with a tray flat upper surface.
Applicant again restates arguments that the use of silicone as the elastomer material for the lid would not be obvious as silicone is a poor barrier material. However, this obviousness of material choice is irrelevant, as Boese explicitly discloses the use of a silicone elastomer material as a matter of anticipation and not the obviousness of material selection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights