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
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a paint roller” in claim 3. There is a previously claimed “paint roller” set forth in line 2 and it is unclear if these are the same or different paint rollers. This makes future recitations of “the paint roller” unclear since it is unclear which of the previously claimed paint rollers is being referred to, or if they are the same. For the purpose of examination, this is understood to be “the paint roller”.
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) 1, 4-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 2782909), in view of Mancuso, Jr. (US 8534632 B1) and further in view of Major (US 20110308027 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, McNamara discloses a painting set, comprising:
a paint implement (see brush in figures 1 and 2) and a container (see figures 1 and 2) for the paint implement, comprising: a cylinder portion (top cylinder portion near 15 in figure 2) disposed at a top of the container, wherein the cylinder portion has an open top end configured to accept the paint implement; a reservoir portion (middle or bottom portion near 13 or 17 in figure 2) coupled with the cylinder portion, wherein the reservoir portion is configured to receive an amount of paint (at least of a structure that would allow paint to be received), wherein the reservoir portion is narrower than the cylinder portion (figures 1 and 2), and wherein the reservoir portion has a larger cross-sectional dimension than a cross-sectional dimension of the paint implement (figures 1 and 2)
McNamara is silent regarding a base portion disposed at a bottom of the container, wherein the base portion is configured to stabilize the container. Regarding claim 10, McNamara is further silent regarding the base portion is removable from the reservoir portion.
Mancuso, Jr. teaches a paint implement container (Col. 3, lines 54-57) comprising a base portion 100 disposed at a bottom of the container 101 (figure 4), wherein the base portion is configured to stabilize the container (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Mancuso, Jr. further discloses the base portion is removable from the rest of the container including a bottom portion that is configured to serve as a reservoir portion (see shape of opening and bucket allowing for removeable connection and optional use of tie down ropes in figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify McNamara by providing a base portion disposed at a bottom of the container, wherein the base portion is configured to stabilize the container, wherein the base portion is removable from the reservoir portion, as taught by Mancuso. Jr., for the purpose of preventing the container from easily being tipped over.
McNamara is further silent regarding the paint implement being a paint roller comprising a paint roller frame extending along a long axis of the paint roller; a paint roller handle fixedly attached to a first end of the frame; and a paint roller cover attached over a second end of the paint roller frame; wherein the paint roller cover is configured to rotate about an axis that is substantially aligned with the long axis of the paint roller handle.
Major teaches a paint system comprising a paint implement, wherein the paint implement is a paint roller (figure 8) comprising a paint roller frame (320) extending along a long axis of the paint roller; a paint roller handle 370 fixedly attached to a first end of the frame (attached at 020; paragraph 0136: mating coupling connection 142 forms a fixed attachment); and a paint roller cover (330) attached over a second end of the paint implement, wherein the paint roller cover is configured to rotate about an axis that is substantially aligned with the long axis of the paint roller handle (a “roller” necessarily rolls, or rotates relative to the handle, as is known in the art. However, Major discusses the rotation of the roller in paragraph 0152; see “substantially” aligned axes in figure 8, wherein the term “substantially” does not require perfect alignment; furthermore, the term “aligned’ does not necessitate the axes to be “coaxial”; “align” is also defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary as “to be in or come into precise adjustment or correct relative position”; alternatively, two axes that are parallel to each other could be considered “aligned” since the axes themselves are arranged along a line, similarly to how books are “aligned” on a shelf).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify McNamara by substituting the paint brush for a paint roller, the paint roller comprising a paint roller frame extending along a long axis of the paint roller; a paint roller handle fixedly attached to a first end of the frame; and a paint roller cover attached over a second end of the paint roller frame; wherein the paint roller cover is configured to rotate about an axis that is substantially aligned with the long axis of the paint roller handle, as taught by Major, for the purpose of allowing for a desired texture of paint to be applied to a painting surface by the desired implement and at a desired angle for better reaching in certain situations.
Regarding claim 4, McNamara further discloses the set comprising a cap (figures 1 and 2; (Col. 2, lines 39-45) configured to close the container.
Regarding claim 5, McNamara further discloses wherein the cap forms an airtight seal with the container (Col. 2, lines 39-45).
Regarding claim 6, McNamara further discloses wherein the cap is configured to close the container with the paint implement within the container (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, McNamara further discloses a recess 41 of the cap configured to accept the paint implement handle, wherein the paint implement handle is held in place and the paint implement is maintained in a position substantially aligned with a length of the container when the cap closes the container with the paint implement in the container (figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, McNamara further discloses a tapered portion of the container disposed between the cylinder portion and the reservoir portion (see small tapered transitions between sections in figures 1-2).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 2782909), in view of Mancuso, Jr. (US 8534632 B1), further in view of Major (US 20110308027 A1) and further in view of Cooper (US 9579925 B1).
Regarding claim 2, McNamara as modified above discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. McNamara is further silent regarding a retainer of the paint implement configured to removably support the paint implement on an edge of the cylinder portion.
However, Cooper teaches a retainer 5 of a paint implement configured to removably support the paint implement on an edge of a cylinder portion (figure 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify McNamara by providing a retainer of the paint implement configured to removably support the paint implement on an edge of the cylinder portion, as taught by Cooper, for the purpose of allowing the paint implement to be in an easily accessible position.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 2782909), in view of Mancuso, Jr. (US 8534632 B1), further in view of Major (US 20110308027 A1) and further in view Tretwold et al (US 2988767)
Regarding claim 3, McNamara as modified above is further silent regarding an internal textured surface of the cylinder configured to wipe excess paint from the paint roller cover. However, Tretwold teaches a container having an upper portion and a lower reservoir portion, wherein the container has an internal textured surface 18 on the upper portion configured to wipe excess paint from the paint implement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify McNamara by providing an internal textured surface of the cylinder (upper portion) configured to wipe excess paint from the paint implement, as taught by Tretwold, for the purpose of ensuring that too much paint does not remain on the implement when being used.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamara (US 2782909), in view of Mancuso, Jr. (US 8534632 B1), further in view of Major (US 20110308027 A1) and further in view of Alvarez (US 20220134800 A1).
Regarding claim 8, McNamara as modified above is further silent regarding a container handle. However, Alvarez teaches a container handle 120 (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to further modify McNamara by providing a container handle on the container, as taught by Alvarez, for the purpose of allowing the container to be easily carried.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/5/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Major which teaches the limitations added to claim 1, as set forth above.
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772