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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protective bead” as claimed in claims 27 and 28 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
on page 9, from line 30 to the end of the page, the disclosure reads “the film…covers substantially all of the channel 222 except for that portion occupied by the interface 400”. However, Figure 5 shows that channel 222 is the indentation in the center of the tool for receiving interface 400, and Figure 4 shows a cut-out in the film where the interface is to positioned, and Figure 1 shows interface 400 occupying all of the cut-out portion. Therefore, it is unclear how the film can cover substantially all of the channel (which should be 222) when Figures 1, 4, and 5 show that the film does not cover any of the channel. Examiner notes that there is a channel-like portion 215, but the specification clearly denotes that as “flat portions 215”, and is not the same as channel 222.
On page 16, there are disclosed “raised portions 114 and flat portions 115”, however none of the figures show 114 or 115. It is unclear whether these are instances of typographical errors which should read “raised portions 214 and flat portions 215”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first and second raised surfaces form a channel between them and wherein the film covers at least a portion of the channel.” The specification discloses the channel being 222, and Figure 5 shows that channel 222 is the indentation in the center of the tool for receiving interface 400, and Figure 4 shows a cut-out in the film where the interface is to positioned, and Figure 1 shows interface 400 occupying all of the cut-out portion. Therefore, it is unclear how the film can cover “at least a portion of the channel” (which should be 222) when Figures 1, 4, and 5 show that the film does not cover any of the channel, and the channel is completely occupied by the interface 400. Examiner notes that there is a channel-like portion 215, but the specification clearly denotes that as “flat portions 215”, and is not the same as channel 222. Also claim 5 claims “flat portions” which reference portion 215, so it is not the same element as channel 222. Since it is completely unclear to Examiner what Applicant is trying to claim in claim 4, claim 4 will not be further treated on the merits until correction is provided.
Claims 27 and 28 recites a “protective bead”. There is no disclosure of a protective bead in the specification, and there is no structure to be found in the drawings that look like a protective bead. Since it is completely unclear to Examiner what Applicant is trying to claim, claims 27 and 28 will not be further treated on the merits until correction is provided.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baratta et al., US 2018/0327981 A1 in view of Thiemann et al., US 2007/0184276 A1 and Glaser, US 2014/0083599 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Baratta teaches a concrete finishing tool (Figures 1, 13, and 14) comprising a longitudinally extending tool (float 400) having a finishing surface (concrete-contacting surface 428) and an opposite surface (top surface of float) [that is] opposite the finishing surface.
While Baratta fails to disclose a film extending over at least a portion of the opposite surface, Thiemann discloses that a surface treatment can be applied on a variety of items including tools ([0095]-[0096]), the surface treatment for protecting a surface of the item such as protecting from minor impacts ([0002]), and that the surface treatment can be in the form of a vinyl film ([0089]). Glaser discloses a protective cover to prevent scuffing, scratching, or the like on a surface and discloses the cover to be a vinyl film or the like ([0047]) and that the cover does not cover a performance face so as to not affect the performance of the tool (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Baratta’s tool to have a protective layer such as a vinyl film in view of Thiemann’s disclosure that tools need protection from minor impacts and to have the film extending over at least a portion of the opposite face in view of Glaser’s disclosure of protection but not covering a performance face so as to not affect the performance of the tool (in the resulting combination, the finishing surface is the performance face, and the opposite surface would have at least a portion covered by the film for protection).
Regarding claim 2, it would be obvious to have the film extend over at least 50% of the opposite surface (top surface of the float in the resulting combination) to protect as much of the surface as possible.
Regarding claim 3, as shown in Baratta’s Figure 13, the resulting combination includes the opposite surface including first and second raised surfaces (at the left and right sides), and the resulting combination makes obvious that the film would extend between the first and second raised surfaces to protect that surface.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in Baratta’s Figures 13 and 14, the resulting combination includes the opposite surface having flat portions (portions between ribs) and raised portions (412, 414), and the resulting combination makes obvious that the film would extend over the flat portions and raised portions to protect as much of the surface as possible.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in Baratta’s Figures 13 and 14, the resulting combination includes first and second flat portions that extend on opposite sides of at least one of the raised portions, and the resulting combination makes obvious that the film extends over the at least one raised portion and over the first and second flat portions to protect as much of the surface as possible.
Regarding claim 7, the resulting combination makes obvious that the film covers substantially all of the opposite surface that that is not the performance surface.
Regarding claim 8, the resulting combination makes obvious that the film covers substantially all of the opposite surface except for a tool interface since Baratta discloses that the tool interface is for coupling the float with the remainder of the assembly (shown in Figure 1) and covering it could prevent the remainder of the assembly from seating properly.
Regarding claim 9, the resulting combination includes the film being a vinyl.
Regarding claim 10, since Thiemann discloses a pressure-sensitive vinyl film ([0089]) and Glaser discloses using 3M Scotchprint Wrap Film Series 1080 (which is a pressure-sensitive film), the resulting combination makes obvious to use a pressure-sensitive vinyl film.
Regarding claim 11, the resulting combination makes obvious that the film extends to an edge region of the opposite surface to be able to cover as much of the opposite surface as possible, and the resulting combination includes an edge protector (Baratta’s end cap, [0129]) on the edge region and extending over a portion of the film since the end cap is disclosed to be removable and is placed over an edge of the float/tool ([0129]).
Regarding claim 12, the resulting combination from claim 11 includes the edge protector being an end cap.
Regarding claim 13, the resulting combination from claim 11 includes the edge protector being an end cap, which could be considered a channel cover since the edge outline (side view) of the float (Figure 13, looking from left side to right side) is like a channel.
Regarding claim 14, the edge protector from claim 11 could be considered an edge rail cover since a top view of the float shows the edge protector to look like a rail.
Regarding claim 15, since Glaser discloses that the vinyl film can be printed with indicia or markings and is then laminated with a thin transparent over-laminate ([0048]), the resulting combination makes obvious that the film is a film laminate if it was desired to include indicia or markings such as a logo on the tool.
Regarding claim 16, the resulting combination from claim 15 includes the film laminate including a protective overlaminate.
Regarding claim 17, while the resulting combination fails to disclose that the film includes a UV absorber, the Examiner takes Official Notice that adding a UV absorber to materials like plastics and coatings to prevent the material from degrading from ultraviolet rays like sunlight is old and well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of the resulting combination to have a UV absorber to protect it from damage UV rays like the sun if the tool is kept outdoors.
Regarding claims 18-20, Glaser further discloses that the film can be printed, be clear or transparent, be opaque with any desired color, be translucent with color, or include decorative patterns or designs. In view of the plurality of options disclosed, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the film include an opaque area with an image, to have the film include text, or have the film be printable since all of these options are known and it would be a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 21, while the resulting combination from claim 1 fails to disclose that the film extends to within 1/8 of an inch of a perimeter of edge surfaces of the tool, this is a matter of mere change in size, and it has been held that change in size is not a patentable distinction. Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resulting combination to have the film extend to within 1/8 of an inch of a perimeter of edge surfaces of the tool to ensure that as much of the surface is covered without it going over the edge.
Regarding claim 22, the resulting combination includes the tool being a concrete float.
Regarding claim 23, the resulting combination includes the opposite surface (top surface) extends to at least first and second edges (left and right edges) and makes obvious that the film extends substantially to the first and second edges to protect as much of the opposite surface as possible.
Regarding claim 24, the resulting combination from claim 23 includes the first and second edges being on opposite edges of the opposite surface.
Regarding claim 25, the resulting combination from claim 24 includes the first and second edges being first and second edges of the tool.
Regarding claim 26, the resulting combination from claim 24 includes the first and second edges being an edge of the tool and an edge of an opening to a channel in the opposite surface (Figure 13 showing side view).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited sheet. Puckett, Jr. et al., US 2009/0308540 A1 is cited for teaching a vinyl film on a substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J CHU whose telephone number is 571-272-7819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 9:30-5:30.
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/KATHERINE J CHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671