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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 118 (plurality of stationary living hinges, claim 6), 150 (lower lip, claim 8), and 160 (upper lip, claim 9). 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. 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.
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, a plurality of protrusions on each of the first primary panel and the secondary panel 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:
In paragraph [0024] the lower lip is referred to as 170 and 150.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “via opening” should be rewritten to read “via an opening”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-14, 17 and 19 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 13: Claim 13 recites “further comprising a user applies force along a longitudinal axis of the paint roller sleeve removal tool and is adapted to slide the soiled paint roller sleeve off of the roller cage of the pain roller frame”. It is not clear what the further structural limitation of the instant invention, the paint roller sleeve removal tool recited in this claim. If Applicant’s intention was to claim the step of the method of using the paint roller sleeve removal tool, the claim should be a method claim which defines the steps.
Claim 14: Claim 14 recites a step of a method of using the paint roller sleeve removal tool. Also, the phrase, “the soiled paint roller sleeve is disposed of via opening the paint roller sleeve removal tool” is unclear. If Applicant’s intention was to claim the step of the method of using the paint roller sleeve removal tool, the claim should be a method claim which defines the steps.
Claim 17: In line 2 the claim recites “an interior surface”. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is not clear how “an interior surface” of claim 17 differs from “an interior surface” of claim 16 which upon claim 17 depends.
Claim 19: In line 2 the claim recites "the upper lip and the lower lip". This limitation lacks antecedent basis within the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10,12,15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 10, 12, 15, and 18 only recite the intended use of the paint roller sleeve removal tool (the upper lip and the lower lip adapted to prevent a user’s hand from slipping off of the paint roller sleeve removal tool when in use for claim 10, to be placed over a soiled paint roller sleeve affixed to the roller cage of the paint roller frame for claim 12, to be closed over the soiled paint roller sleeve and the primary tubular member to be gripped by the user for claim 15, the protrusions to increase a surface area in contact with a point roller sleeve to increase frictional engagement therewith for claim 18). Claims 10, 12, 15, and 18 do not further define any structural limitations of the paint roller sleeve removal tool, the instant invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehres (US 5,115,542).
Claim 1: Gehres provides a tool (Fig. A), comprising:
a primary tubular member having a first primary panel hingedly affixed to a second primary panel (Fig. A; also hinge 12 in Fig. 2); and
a secondary tubular member affixed to the primary tubular member, the secondary tubular member having a first secondary panel affixed to a distal end of the first primary panel and a second secondary panel affixed to a distal end of the second primary panel (Fig. A).
Gehres does not explicitly disclose the tool is a paint roller sleeve removal tool. However, the tool of Gehres discloses the recited structural limitations of the claim and therefore, the tool of Gehres is capable of performing the recited intended use and therefore meets the limitations of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
403
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Annotated Copy Fig. 2 of US 5,115,542
Claim 2: Gehres provides the primary tubular member includes a widened first end (upper end, having an element 42, Fig. 7) and a widened second end (bottom end, having an element 42, Fig. 7).
Claim 3: Gehres provides the widened first end and the widened second end are double-sided (inner and outer sides).
Claim 5: Gehres provides wherein the secondary tubular member includes a widened first end (upper end, having element 42, Fig. 7) and a widened second end (upper end, having element 42, Fig. 7) that are double-sided (inner and outer sides).
Claim 7: Gehres provides the first primary panel and the second primary panel are each an arcuate panel (Fig. A).
Claim 8: Gehres provides comprising a lower lip (42, the lower one) extending radially outwardly from a lower edge of the first primary panel and the second primary panel (Fig. 1, 5, and 7; Col. 2 lines 36-37).
Claim 9: Gehres provides comprising an upper lip (42, the upper one) extending radially outwardly from an upper edge of each of the first primary panel and the second primary panel (Fig.1,5 and 7; Col. 2 lines 36-37).
Claim 10: The tool of Gehres is capable of the upper lip and the lower lip are adapted to prevent a user’s hand from slipping off of the paint roller sleeve removal tool when in use. (See 112 rejection above).
Claim 11: Gehres provides the secondary tubular member comprises a diameter less than that of the primary tubular member (Fig. A, diameter 60 between first secondary panel and second secondary panel), such that the paint roller sleeve removal tool provides the primary tubular member and the secondary tubular member adapted to be dimensioned for use with a roller cage of a paint roller frame having a plurality of diameters (Fig. A, see different diameters).
Claim 12: The tool of Gehres is capable of the paint roller sleeve removal tool is adapted to be placed over a soiled paint roller sleeve affixed to the roller cage of the paint roller frame (See 112 rejection above). The tool could be placed over a soiled paint roller sleeve.
Claim 13: The tool of Gehres is capable of further comprising a user applies force along a longitudinal axis of the paint roller sleeve removal tool and is adapted to slide the soiled paint roller sleeve off of the roller cage of the paint roller frame (See 112 rejection above). The tool could be used to slide a soiled paint roller sleeve off the roller cage.
Claim 14: The tool of Gehres is capable of once the soiled paint roller sleeve is adapted to be removed from the roller cage of the paint roller frame, the soiled paint roller sleeve is disposed of via opening the paint roller sleeve removal tool. (See 112 rejection above). The tool can be opened to remove a soiled paint roller.
Claim 15: The tool of Gehres is capable of the paint roller sleeve removal tool is adapted to be closed over the soiled paint roller sleeve, and the primary tubular member is adapted to be gripped by the user (See 112 rejection above). The tool could be closed over a soiled paint roller sleeve.
Claim 16: Gehres provides comprising a plurality of protrusions (36) is affixed to an interior surface of each of the first primary panel, the second primary panel, the first secondary panel, and the second secondary panel, respectively (Fig. 2 and 7).
Claim 17: Gehres provides the protrusions (36) extend from an interior surface into a plurality of channels defined by the primary tubular member and the secondary tubular member (Fig. 2-3 and 7).
Claim 18: Gehres provides the protrusions (36) are configured to increase a surface area in contact with a paint roller sleeve to increase frictional engagement therewith (Fig. 2-3, and 7).
Claim 19: Gehres provides the protrusions (36) aid in gripping the paint roller sleeve (Fig. 2-4 and 7), while the upper lip (42) and the lower lip (42) ensure that the user’s hand is retained on the paint roller sleeve removal tool during use (Fig. 1-2, 5 and 7).
Claim 20: Gehres provides the protrusions (36) are distributed across the interior surface in a series of aligned columns (Fig. 3 and 7).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehres (US 5,115,542) in view of Berezansky (US 5,462,322).
Claim 4: Gehres fails to explicitly disclose the first primary panel is hingedly affixed to the second primary panel with a screw inserted through a pair of extended apertures extending from the first primary panel and the second primary panel.
However, Berezanksy teaches using a screw (4) to engage a pair of extended apertures (openings of 5,6) to hingedly attach first and second elements together (Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify hindgely connection of the tool provided by Gehres to include the hingedly connection as taught by Berezansky in order to selectively pivot the panels (Berezansky, abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Also, objected under the drawings objection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda J Kreiling whose telephone number is (571)272-6091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Amanda Kreiling/ Examiner, Art Unit 3726 12/4/25
/JASON L VAUGHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726