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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 11-12 were amended. Claims 2 and 15-20 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-14 are in the application. Replacement figure 4 was submitted. A replacement paragraph was submitted to amend the title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Drawings
The previous objection to the drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a) is withdrawn based on the submission of a replacement drawing.
Specification
The previous objection to the title of the invention for not being descriptive is maintained. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Correction of the following is required: “ the plurality of spacers, and wherein the plurality of spacers are not coupled with one another except through the applicator panel or the back panel” .
Claim Objections
The previous objection of the claims 1, 6, and 11-12 are withdrawn based on the amendment to claims 1, 6, and 11-12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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. “ the plurality of spacers, and wherein the plurality of spacers are not coupled with one another except through the applicator panel or the back panel”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The previous rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 ( hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) is being maintained.
The previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 ( hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 6.
Regarding claim 1, NPL teaches an applicator device, comprising: a back panel; one of: a pole attached to the back panel; and a coupler coupled with the back panel and configured for receiving a pole; and an applicator panel having four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter, the applicator panel comprising a plurality of openings; and at least one spacer coupled between the applicator panel and the back panel, the at least one spacer facilitating a gap between the applicator panel and the back panel; wherein the applicator panel comprises a flat top surface and is configured for applying a layer of wet drywall compound to one of a wall and a ceiling. (See NPL, Figs. 3-7, Abstract and Annotated Fig. 3 below)
PNG
media_image1.png
914
1380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, NPL does not explicitly teach one of: a pole attached to the back panel; and a coupler coupled with the back panel and configured for receiving a pole.
Padgett is directed to tool for applying a texture material to a surface.
Padgett teaches one of: a pole (8) attached to the back panel (9); and a coupler (10) coupled with the back panel (9) and configured for receiving a pole (8). (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one of: a pole (8) attached to the back panel (9); and a coupler (10) coupled with the back panel (9) and configured for receiving a pole (8); because Padgett teaches this structure would enable the plate to be connected to the pole and enable the tool to be accommodated to a planar surface through wide ranges of angles of universal direction of the drive device. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
Regarding claim 1, NPL does not explicitly teach an applicator panel having four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter.
Renner is directed to tool for applying a texture material to a surface.
Renner teaches an applicator panel having four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter. (See Renner, Abstract, paragraphs 10-16, 23-24, and 27-31, Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an applicator panel having four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter, because Renner teaches this structure would enable the surface to have the desired texture. (See Renner, Abstract, paragraphs 10-16, 23-24, and 27-31, Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 1, NPL does not explicitly teach the back panel has four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter.
Padgett teaches the back panel in the form of troweling plate (9) which has four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.) Examiner is considering the back panel of the troweling plate (See Padgett, Figs. 2, 6, 8. ) to receive the handle (8) and the front panel of the troweling plate to contact the wall or ceiling (See Padgett, Fig. 9) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the back panel has four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter, because Padgett teaches is an art recognized equivalent shape of the back panel of the troweling plate wherein the back panel is able to receive the handle . (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
It has been held that an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F. 2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
It has been held that the shape or configuration is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is significant. In this case, no evidence to the significance of the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is provided and the shape (orientation, alignment, or configuration) is considered an obvious matter of design choice based on other known (orientation, alignment, or configuration) in the art. (See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) )
PNG
media_image2.png
511
829
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 recites an intended use clause (i. e. facilitating a gap…, configured for receiving a pole…, configured for applying a layer… ). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. NPL in view of Padgett and Renner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, NPL does not explicitly teach the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the back panel is substantially equivalent in shape and size to the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the applicator panel.
Padgett teaches the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the back panel is substantially equivalent in shape and size to the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the applicator panel. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the back panel is substantially equivalent in shape and size to the rectangular perimeter at least partially defined by the applicator panel, because Padgett teaches this structure would enable the plate to be connected to the pole and enable the tool to be accommodated to a planar surface through wide ranges of angles of universal direction of the drive device. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
Regarding claim 5, NPL does not explicitly teach some of the plurality of openings are fully circumscribed by the applicator panel.
Renner teaches some of the plurality of openings are fully circumscribed by the applicator panel. (See Renner, Abstract, paragraphs 10-16, 23-24, and 27-31, Figs. 1-3.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include some of the plurality of openings are fully circumscribed by the applicator panel, because Renner teaches this structure would enable the surface to have the desired texture. (See Renner, Abstract, paragraphs 10-16, 23-24, and 27-31, Figs. 1-3.)
Regarding claim 7, NPL teaches the at least one spacer is hollow, and wherein the applicator panel is coupled with the back panel using a fastener which passes through the at least one spacer. (See NPL, Figs. 3-7, Abstract.)
Regarding claim 8, NPL does not explicitly teach the applicator panel is substantially black to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator panel is substantially black to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound as an aesthetic or simple design choice.
Claim 8 recites an intended use clause (i. e. to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. NPL in view of Padgett and Renner is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitation.
In addition, in response to limitations directed to configuration and design ( i.e. shape and dimensions, based on MPEP 2144.04 and MPEP 716.01(a), Examiner would consider evidence that the particular configuration is significant.
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 9, NPL does not explicitly teach the four sides of the applicator panel at least partially define a square perimeter.
Padgett teaches the four sides of the applicator panel at least partially define a square perimeter. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the four sides of the applicator panel at least partially define a square perimeter, because Padgett teaches this structure would enable the plate to be connected to the pole and enable the tool to be accommodated to a planar surface through wide ranges of angles of universal direction of the drive device. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
The previous rejection of claims 4 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 (hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,390,801 to Steven Dale Smith (hereinafter Smith) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 4, NPL does not explicitly teach wherein some of the plurality of openings are not fully circumscribed by the applicator panel.
Smith teaches wherein some of the plurality of openings are not fully circumscribed by the applicator panel . (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein some of the plurality of openings are not fully circumscribed by the applicator panel, because Smith teaches this structure would enable the desired pattern to be conveyed to the surface. (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 2, lines 10-25, col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
Regarding claim 14, NPL does not explicitly teach wherein the applicator panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer.
Smith teaches wherein the applicator panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer. (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the applicator panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer, because Smith teaches plastic is preferable material for the blade surface coming into contact with the adhesive and the ceiling and the wall. (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 2, lines 10-25, col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
Regarding claim 14, NPL does not explicitly teach wherein the back panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer.
Smith teaches wherein the applicator panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer. (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the back panel is formed of one of a metal and a polymer, because this would allow the back panel to match the preferable material for the applicator panel enabling maintenance and chemical resistance for both surfaces to match. (See Smith, Abstract, Figs. 3-6; col. 2, lines 10-25, col. 3, lines 1-20; 21-45.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 (hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 3,460,183 A1 to E.M. Harrington (hereinafter Harrington).
Regarding claim 6, NPL teaches the at least one spacer (4) comprises a plurality of spacers, each of the plurality of spacers comprising a substantially identical height so that the gap between the applicator panel and the back panel is substantially equal proximate each spacer of the plurality of spacers. (See NPL, Figs. 3, 4, and 5 , Abstract)
Regarding claim 6, NPL does not explicitly teach the plurality of spacers are not coupled with one another except through the applicator panel or the back panel.
Harrington is directed to a trowel for applying or smoothing abrasive materials such as a plaster.
Harrington teaches the plurality of spacers (14) are not coupled with one another except through the applicator panel (14) or the back panel (12). (See Harrington, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 16-45.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the plurality of spacers are not coupled with one another except through the applicator panel or the back panel, because Harrington teaches this would be an effective way for securing structure of the trowel together. (See Harrington, Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 16-45.)
The previous rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 (hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 2000111820 A1 to Aoyama et al (hereinafter Aoyama) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 8, NPL does not explicitly teach the applicator panel is substantially black to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound.
Aoyama is directed to a wiper.
Aoyama teaches the applicator panel (wiper blade) is substantially black to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound. (See Aoyama, Abstract, paragraphs 69-70 and Figs. 1-12.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator panel is substantially black to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound, because Smith teaches this structure would enable the desired pattern to be conveyed to the surface. (See Aoyama, Abstract, paragraphs 69-70 and Figs. 1-12.)
Claim 8 recites an intended use clause (i. e. to provide visual contrast with the wet drywall compound). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. NPL in view of Padgett and Renner and Aoyama is capable of the intended use and as a result meets the claimed limitation.
The previous rejection of claims 10 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 ( hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,771,525 to Fulcher et al (hereinafter Fulcher) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 10, NPL does not explicitly teach the applicator device comprises the coupler coupled with the back panel.
Padgett teaches a device for creating patterns on walls, ceilings, and surface.
Padgett teaches the applicator device comprises the coupler coupled with the back panel. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator device comprises the coupler coupled with the back panel, because Padgett teaches this structure is art recognized equivalent structure for connecting a coupler to a platform. (See Padgett, Abstract, col. 1, lines 63-71; col. 2, lines 10-25.)
Regarding claim 10, NPL does not explicitly teach wherein the coupler is a threaded coupler.
Fulcher teaches wherein the coupler is a threaded coupler (threaded cavity, 30). (See Fulcher, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-37; col. 3, lines 15-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the coupler is a threaded coupler, because Fulcher teaches this structure would enable the plate to be connected to the pole and enable the tool to be accommodated to a planar surface through wide ranges of angles of universal direction of the drive device. (See Fulcher, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-37; col. 3, lines 15-22.)
Regarding claim 13, NPL does not explicitly teach the applicator device comprises the pole, and wherein the pole is a threaded pole configured for attaching to the threaded coupler.
Fulcher teaches the applicator device comprises the pole, and wherein the pole is a threaded pole configured for attaching to the threaded coupler. (See Fulcher, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-37; col. 3, lines 15-22.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the applicator device comprises the pole, and wherein the pole is a threaded pole configured for attaching to the threaded coupler., because Fulcher teaches this structure would enable the plate to be connected to the pole and enable the tool to be accommodated to a planar surface through wide ranges of angles of universal direction of the drive device. (See Fulcher, Abstract, Figs. 1, 3; col. 2, lines 27-37; col. 3, lines 15-22.)
The previous rejection of claims 11-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL of Images of a prior art applicator device in use in the U.S. at least as early as May 24, 2022 from IDS 4-12-2024 ( hereinafter NPL) in view of US Pat. Num. 3,628,210 to Edwin Padgett (hereinafter Padgett) and US Pat. Pub. No. 20110117277 A1 to Renner et al (hereinafter Renner) in view of US Pat. Num. 5,771,525 to Fulcher et al (hereinafter Fulcher) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 8, 151,404 B1 to Gundlach (hereinafter Gundlach) is being maintained.
Regarding claim 11, NPL does not explicitly teach the back panel comprises a plurality of openings, and wherein the threaded coupler is coupled with the back panel using fasteners that pass through the openings.
Gundlach is directed to a handle and a trowel and threaded fasteners.
Gundlach teaches the back panel comprises a plurality of openings (fastener holes 54) , and fasteners (threaded fasteners) that pass through the openings (See Gundlach, Abstract, col. 3, lines 1-3; col. 4, lines 13-29, col. 8, lines 15-35.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the back panel comprises a plurality of openings, and wherein the threaded coupler is coupled with the back panel using fasteners that pass through the openings, because Gundlach are an effective way for attaching two surfaces together in a spreading device. (See Gundlach, Abstract, col. 3, lines 1-3; col. 4, lines 13-29, col. 8, lines 15-35.)
Regarding claim 12, NPL does not explicitly teach the fasteners that pass through the openings comprise threaded fasteners.
Gundlach teaches the fasteners that pass through the openings comprise threaded fasteners. (See Gundlach, Abstract, col. 3, lines 1-3; col. 4, lines 13-29, col. 8, lines 15-35.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the fasteners that pass through the openings comprise threaded fasteners, because Gundlach teaches this structure is effective for fastening two surfaces together in a spreading device. (See Gundlach, Abstract, col. 3, lines 1-3; col. 4, lines 13-29, col. 8, lines 15-35.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Representative argues in second paragraph, page 14 of the Remarks Section:
“Padgett FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 (portions of which are copied below) may be argued to disclose applicator panel 9, but no back panel. Counsel for applicant has similarly reviewed all of the remaining figures of Padgett (FIGS. 3-13) and has found nothing therein that could be reasonably argued to disclose a "back panel."
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “panel” Examiner is considering the back panel of the troweling plate (See Padgett, Figs. 2, 6, 8. ) to receive the handle (8) and the front panel of the troweling plate to contact the wall or ceiling (See Padgett, Fig. 9) . Examiner is considering the term to mean:
“ a flat, usually rectangular part, or piece of wood, metal, cloth, etc., that fits into or onto something larger” (See Cambridge Dictionary.)
Examiner is considering the trowel (9) of Padgett to include a panel at the back and front.
Applicant’s Representative argues in first paragraph, page 15 of the Remarks Section:
“The cited Abstract discusses a ‘troweling plate’ which may be called an applicator panel, but makes no reference to anything that can be reasonably called a back panel”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “panel” Examiner is considering the back panel of the troweling plate (See Padgett, Figs. 2, 6, 8. ) to receive the handle (8) and the front panel of the troweling plate to contact the wall or ceiling (See Padgett, Fig. 9) .
Applicant’s Representative argues in second paragraph, page 15 of the Remarks Section:
“Padgett … cannot reasonably be argued to disclose ‘ the back panel has four sides each of which at least partially defines a rectangular perimeter”.
Examiner disagrees based on the Examiner is considering the back panel of the troweling plate (See Padgett, Figs. 2, 6, 8. ) to receive the handle (8) and the front panel of the troweling plate to contact the wall or ceiling (See Padgett, Fig. 9) .
Applicant’s Representative argues in third paragraph, page 15 of the Remarks Section:
“It is clear from the images of NPL that the intended purpose of the NPL device is to create a stylistic design having a wavy/flowery appearance at its outer perimeter- and that it is not intended that the applicator be used to apply designs in an ordered manner wherein the edge of one application coincides with the edge of another in order to fully cover a ceiling or wall or the like.”
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., structure capable of applying a single design or multiple designs each having a gap between or a situation wherein the entire ceiling/floor is not covered by the design) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant’s Representative argues in second paragraph, page 16 of the Remarks Section:
“It is clear from the images of NPL that the intended purpose of the NPL device is to create a stylistic design having a wavy/flowery appearance at its outer perimeter- and that it is not intended that the applicator be used to apply designs in an ordered manner wherein the edge of one application coincides with the edge of another in order to fully cover a ceiling or wall or the like.”
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., structure capable of formation of solitary standalone images with a flowery/wavy outer perimeter on a ceiling or wall) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Applicant’s Representative argues in third paragraph to fourth paragraph, page 16 of the Remarks Section:
“Further, the examiner’s reasoning for combining the references is without merit.
In the first place, Padgett, as detailed above, has an applicator panel but no back panel at all, so it cannot be reasonably be argued to indicate that a back panel structure would enable anything, let alone enabling the plate to be connected to the pole or to the tool to be rotated to various angles to accommodate various planar surfaces.”
Examiner disagrees. Padgett teaches structure for receiving a handle and having a perimeter with four sides.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717