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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1, 7, and 13 were amended, claim 2, 4-6, 10, 14-20 was canceled. Claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11-13 are pending.
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 device of claim 13 (a handle with a hinged cover) 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 states of the existence of a top wall with a handle including a grip area and a raised texture silicon foam grip area. The specification does not teach of the existence of both of these features. It is understood that both of these features are meant for opening the device. The presence of both is not taught. Through out the specification it is taught separately. For example [0013] teaches of a textured top wall of the cover. Then [0014] starts with “In another embodiment, the cover may be comprised of at least one handle”. Claims 8-9 and 11-12 directly or indirectly depend from claim 7 and are also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce (US 5870969 A) in view of Campbell (US 20190339047 A1) and Foraker (US 6575328 B1).
With respect to claim 1, Boyce discloses a device capable of being a drywall mud pan cover device comprising: a cover (92) comprising a rectangular top wall and a first and second side walls extending downward from the rectangular top wall, each sidewall comprising a channel (with 94); a drywall pan (12) comprising a bottom wall and a pair of side walls extending upward from the bottom wall (inherent from fig 1), each side wall comprising a flanged top edge (flange around 34) configured to slidably engage one of the respective channels of the first and second side walls of the cover.
PNG
media_image1.png
190
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Boyce failed to disclose wherein the rectangular top wall of the cover comprises a recessed texture grip area. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with sliding lids, Campbell taught of a sliding lid that uses a textured surface as handle (38) instead of a singular large protrusion like Boyce). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a textured grip area as taught by Campbell for the handle as disclosed by Boyce since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, both elements allow for opening the device, a textured grip area allows for less space to be occupied. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143). (Placement on the top wall would be the replacement location of the handle of Boyce)
The references failed to teach of materials and specifically, the grip area being made of neoprene. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Foraker taught of the usage of neoprene as a grip element due to its softness, moldability and insulating properties (col 2 lines 0-11). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grip area of Boyce and Campbell to include neoprene as taught by Foraker in order to allow for softness of the grip area.
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Boyce further teaches wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are each generally L-shaped. (side walls of 92)
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyce (US 5870969 A) in view of Campbell (US 20190339047 A1) and Kamerer (US 4715575 A).
With respect to claim 7, Boyce discloses a device capable of being a drywall mud pan cover device comprising: a cover comprised of a top wall (top of 92), a first side wall and a second side wall (94), and a handle (106) including a grip area (grip-able portion) extending upward from the top wall, a drywall pan comprised of a bottom wall (bottom of 12), a fourth side wall, a fifth side wall (figure 3), a sixth side wall and a seventh side wall (other walls); and wherein the first side wall is L-shaped and forms a first channel (94); wherein the second side wall is L-shaped and forms a second channel (94); wherein the cover is slidable along the first and second channels (94) along a top edge of the fourth side wall and a top edge of the fifth side wall (figure 3) respectively to cover an opening of the drywall pan.
PNG
media_image2.png
514
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Boyce failed to disclose wherein the top wall of the cover comprises a raised texture silicon foam grip area. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers with sliding lids, Campbell taught of a sliding lid that uses a textured surface as handle (38) instead of a singular large protrusion like Boyce). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of containers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a textured grip area as taught by Campbell for the handle as disclosed by Boyce since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, with the difference being the substitution of the elements. In the present case, both elements allow for opening the device, a textured grip area allows for less space to be occupied. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the one known element for the other to produce a predictable result (MPEP 2143). (Placement on the top wall would be the replacement location of the handle of Boyce)
The references failed to teach of materials and specifically, the grip area being made of silicon. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Kamerer taught of the usage of silicon as a grip element due to its soft resilient nature (col 2 lines 44-58). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grip area of Boyce and Campbell to include neoprene as taught by Kamerer in order to allow for softness of the grip area.
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Boyce further teaches wherein the fourth side wall and the fifth side wall are each comprised of a first flanged edge. (top edges of figure 3)
With respect to claim 9, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. Boyce further teaches wherein the sixth side wall and the seventh wall are each comprised of a second flanged edge. (as shown in figure 3 and figure 1)
With respect to claim 11, Boyce failed to disclose the drywall mud pan cover device of claim 7, wherein the cover is comprised of a rectilinear shape, however, Official Notice is taken that having non filleted edges was notoriously well-known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine straight edges with this well-known technique as a simple design choice.
With respect to claim 12, Boyce failed disclose the drywall mud pan cover device of claim 7, wherein the pan is comprised of a rectilinear shape however, Official Notice is taken that having non filleted edges was notoriously well-known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to combine straight edges with this well-known technique as a simple design choice.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hase (US 20060032860 A1) in view of over Boyce (US 5870969 A) and Frey (US 20030034349 A1).
With respect to claim 13, Hase discloses a device capable of being drywall mud pan cover device comprising: a cover comprised of a top wall (23); a drywall pan comprised of a bottom wall, a first side wall (opposite 12), a second side wall (12), a third side wall (14), and a fourth side wall (opposite 14), a hinge (52) attaching the cover to the first side wall of the drywall pan; and a lock (80) for securing the cover to the second side wall of the drywall pan.
The references failed to teach of a textured urethane grip area in the top wall. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Frey taught of the usage of urethane as a grip element due to its high friction nature (abstract). In the present case, incorporation of Freys urethane on the top wall (around area 50) would allow for better grip of stacking surfaces. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the top wall (specifically area 50) of Hase to include urethane as taught by Frey in order to allow for high friction gripping.
Hase failed to disclose of a handle extending upward from the top wall. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely containers, Boyce taught of a handle that extended upwards (106) to aid in opening to container. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover of Hase to include a handle as taught by Boyce in order to allow for easier opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
388
430
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6/18/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6012584-A, US-20030145845-A1, US-20080035696-A1, US-20100324577-A1, US-20110226724-A1, US-20150197947-A1, US-20190008261-A1, US-20210180338-A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735