Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a first office action on the merits for application serail number 18/506,532 filed 11/10/23. Claims 1-16 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Figures 1-6 of the drawings are objected to because in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(b), photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention which is clearly not the case in the instant application. Black and white drawings are required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for the drawings. The objected to figures appear to be photographs, copies of photographs or computer generated photos/images. They are not black line drawings, as required by rule, and are replete with unnecessary shading which reduces legibility. 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.
The drawings are objected to because they should not include descriptive text next to the view numbers. 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.
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 cleaning device embedded within the outside surface of a pole [cls. 13-16] 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 26. The specification only includes 26a and 26b. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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.
Claim 3 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 3 has been treated on the merits as if it depends from claim 2.
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 3, 7, 8 and 13-16 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “near” in claims 15 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the metes and bounds of the distance “near” are.
The terms “smooth”, “rough” and “coarse” in claims 8-10 and 15 are relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the metes and bounds are of smooth rough and coarse.
In claim 16, “the outside face” lacks antecedent basis.
With respect to claim 7, it is not clear how the device includes all color variations? It appears applicant may have intended to recite the color may selected from any one… and/or combinations thereof?
Similarly in claim 8, it is not clear how the device includes all finishes?
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 11,109,723 to Rosenthal.
Rosenthal provides a cleaning device comprised of comprising 150 embedded in pores of the lower end of a shaft 110.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for footwear and sports equipment” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Recitations 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.
Claim 13, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2005/0071941 to Reynolds.
Reynolds provides a cleaning device comprised of comprising sponge 6 or wiper blade 11 embedded in a channel of the lower end of a wan or “pole” 10.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for footwear and sports equipment” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Recitations 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 4,145,062 to Steinmert.
Steinmert provides a ski boot cleaning device 10 comprised of rigid tubular body having two halves as shown in the marked-up figure below. The outer surface is curved as has outwardly projecting edges 26 and blades 28. The device may be clamped anywhere along a ski pole 12 with bolts 48 and threaded nuts 50.
PNG
media_image1.png
222
201
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, the device inherently has a color, which as best understood would fall within “all color variations”.
With respect to claim8, the device is shown having a smooth outer finish and as best understood inherently has a variation of matte, satin or flat.
Claims 2, 5, 11 and 12 are 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.
Claims 3, 10 and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note:
U.S. 2025/0255446 to Wang et al. provides a cleaning device comprised of two tubular halved with cleaning projections and brushes on the outer surface and interlocking channels of projecting flanges. Wang does not qualify as prior art.
U.S. 2013/0111687 to Rolph provides a scraper having a pair of wedges shaped blades 13/1’ extending from the outside face of an elongate cylindrical handle 12.
U.S. Patent 5,713,097 to Brown teaches a ski boot scraper having pyramidal shaped structures.
U.S. Patent 5,358,277 to Klement, Jr. teaches a scarper 16 attached near the bottom of a ski pole 12.
U.S. Patent 4,718,138 to Brown et al. teaches clamping a footwear cleaning device 14 to a ski pole 16.
U.S. Patent 4,573,710 to Ford teaches a tubular cleaning device 10 provided with a slit 15 for securing to a ski pole. The deice having a plurality of blades 18/30.
U.S. Patent 4,221,393 to Donahue teaches a ski pole 11 having scraper blades 17 molded therein.
U.S. Patent 3,929,345 to Naby et al. teaches a ski boot cleaner/scraper friction fit to ski pole 2.
U.S. Patent 8,925,136 to Huybreckx teaches a cleaning device comprising of two rigid tubular halves clamped together at interlocking flanges with a nut and a bolt 14. Projections 16 extend radially outward from the outer surface and include blades. Spaced between the projections are adapted to receive brushes. The halves are not firmly secured to the outside surface of a pole or shaft as called for in claim 1.
U.S. Patent 9,700,126 to Dahlberg teaches a shaft 1 comprised of two tubular halves clamped together with bolts. The outer surface having channels 5 to embed brush magazines.
U.S. Patent 4,018,014 to Belanger provides a cleaning device 12 comprised or two tubular halves firmly clamped to the outer surface of a shaft 13. There are no outwardly projecting edges.
U.S. Patent 6,817,055 to Ekholm provides a cleaning device comprised of two rigid tubular halves clamped together at interlocking flanges with fastener (Fig.5). Projections extend radially outward from the outer surface and include blades. Spaced between the projections are adapted to receive brushes. The halves are not firmly secured to the outside surface of a pole or shaft as called for in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT CANFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6840. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6, some Saturdays.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 571-272-6670. 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.
ROBERT CANFIELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Robert Canfield/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636