DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 12/31/2025
Claims 1-16 and 18-21 are pending and have been examined.
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 2 and 14-16 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.
Claim 2 recites “the paint applicator washer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “A paint roller washer”.
Claim 14 recites “a sprayer and wherein the nozzles are provided along the sprayer”, whereas Claim 1 recites “an annular spray head”. It is unclear whether these are the same or different sprayer/spray head. Examiner suggested Claim 14 recite” wherein the annular spray head further comprises a sprayer…”.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 6-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US US 3,577,280 A) in view of Christensen (US 2,985,178 A).
Re claim 1, George discloses a paint roller washer (title) for removable attachment to a hose (Intended use. See MPEP 2114. Here, the faucet connection may be used for a hose.) for washing a paint roller with washing fluid (abstract), comprising:
a main tube (portion of ref. 34 above nozzles 38) having a first end and a second end;
a spray head (portion of ref. 34 having nozzles 38) fluidly connected to a first end of the main tube, and configured to receive the paint roller along a path that is substantially parallel to the main tube (see figs. 2-3), the annular spray head comprising one or more inwardly directed pressurized nozzles (ref. 38);
a coupler (ref. 48) for removably coupling the paint roller washer to the hose, wherein the coupler is provided at the second end of the main tube such that the hose is coupled substantially parallel to the main tube; and
an elongated and tubular splash cover (ref. 22) surrounding at least a portion of the spray head (see figs. 1-2), the splash cover extending between a first end and a second end, wherein the main tube is oriented parallel to a longitudinal axis of the splash cover (see figs. 1-2), wherein the spray head is positioned inside the splash cover (see fig. 2), and wherein the coupler is positioned outside the splash cover (see figs. 2 and 4).
George discloses as shown above, including wherein the spray nozzles are oriented substantially vertical/perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the main tube and splash cover, but does not disclose an annular spray head, wherein the spray head is oriented substantially perpendicular to the main tube.
However, Christensen discloses it is very old and well-known in the paint roller cleaning art (title) to provide an annular spray head (ref. 22 see figs. 1-3) wherein the spray head is oriented substantially perpendicular to a splash cover (ref. 30) and perpendicular to a vertical direction/path of the roller (see fig. 3), and configured to receive the paint roller along a path that is substantially parallel to the vertical direction/splash cover (see fig. 3). Christensen further discloses the hose (col. 1 lines 31-32 usual hose or faucet fitting).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the spray head of George to further include, separately or in addition, an annular spray head that is substantially perpendicular to a vertical/splash cover/path of the roller, as shown by Christensen, in order to effecting annual cleaning and spinning while avoid further container or receptacle for immersing the roller.
Re claim 2, George further discloses a securing component (ref. 58 serves to secure the washer to a faucet for hands free operation, col. 1 lines 42-47 “freeing the user’s hands”) for securing the paint applicator washer on a support surface for hands-free operation.
Re claim 6, George and Christensen further discloses wherein the splash cover comprises a slot extending between a first end and a second end (George ref. 28).
Re claims 7-10 Christensen further discloses wherein the nozzles are angularly offset in both a lateral direction and a longitudinal direction from a radial axis of the spray head; wherein the nozzles are angularly offset in a lateral direction from a radial axis of the spray head; wherein the nozzles are angularly offset in a longitudinal direction from a radial axis of the spray head; (see figs. 2-3 angle of ref. 24 both respect to radial/lateral direction and longitudinal direction). Regarding “wherein at least one of the nozzles is angularly offset in a first longitudinal direction from the radial axis of the spray head and at least another one of the nozzles is angularly offset in a second longitudinal direction from the radial axis of the spray head substantially opposite the first longitudinal direction”, the change in orientation of the nozzles in the longitudinal/vertical direction is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of changing angle and impact to avoid deadspots in cleaning. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. (Alternatively, “opposite the first longitudinal direction” could refer to position of the longitudinal directions with respect to the annular spray head circumference, thus opposite spray heads have parallel longitudinal directions that are “opposite” to each other with respect to the radial axis).
Re claim 11, George further discloses wherein the coupler extends in parallel to the splash cover and longitudinal to the main tube (see fig. 2).
Re claims 12-16, Independent claim 12 defines over the above rejections only in the recitation of the intended use of the roller head secured to a wire frame (See MPEP 2114) and the securing component for hanging the washing apparatus to an elevated support surface, George discloses the intended use of the roller head secured to a wire frame (see fig. 2) and regarding “securing components”, George discloses hanging from the elevated support surface (see fig. 2 device “hanging” from the faucet mounted to a wall 74). Re claims 13-16, Christensen discloses wherein each nozzle (ref. 24) is further angled in a lateral direction with respect to a respective radius (see figs. 2-3). Christensen further discloses comprising a sprayer (ref. 24) and wherein the nozzles are provided along the sprayer (see figs. 2-3). Regarding “wherein the sprayer is detachable from the splash cover”, George discloses stakes 40 received in holes 30 and it being prima facie obvious to make removable for purposes of repair or maintenance. George discloses wherein the sprayer is permanently secured to an interior surface of the splash cover (col. 4 lines 35-39 “ultrasonic sealing…liquid cement or heat sealing…” ).
Re claims 18-20, Independent claim 18 reads as a combination of limitations rejected above, with tubular splash cover reading on a tubular protective cove, and are therefore satisfied by the combination George/Christensen.
Re claims 19-21, George further discloses wherein the main tube portion and the spray head are surrounded by the protective cover (see figs. 1-2). further comprising a securing mechanism for securing the apparatus for washing the paint applicator to a support surface (ref. 60, see rejection to claim 2).
Claims 3-5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George (US US 3,577,280 A) in view of Christensen (US 2,985,178 A), as applied above, and further in view of Gorecki (US 5,505,220) (Cited by Applicant).
Re claim 3, George/Christensen discloses as shown above but does not explicitly disclose an end cap removably secured to a second end of the splash cover. However, Gorecki discloses it is known in the paint applicator cleaning art (abstract) to include an end cap (see figs. 2 and 4, ref. 24 or ref. 30) removably secured to a second end of the splash cover (ref. 10).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the splash cover of George/Christensen to further include an end cap, as suggested by Gorecki, in order to prevent splashes and enclosed processing.
Re claims 4-5, Gorecki discloses as shown above including a drain port (ref. 20) for removably receiving a drain hose (intended use, drain pipe can have a hose connected. See MPEP 2114.). Gorecki does not explicitly disclose the end cap comprises the drain port. However, the mere integration or rearrangement of the drain port as part of the lower end cap 24 is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, for purposes of gravitation drain and/or convenience of bottom draining position. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C) Rearrangement of Parts. Re claim 5, Christensen further discloses comprising a control valve for controlling a flow of washing fluid therethrough (col. 2 lines 28-30 “valve (not shown) may be incorporated in the tube…to permit the water to be quickly shut off or turned on”.
Re claim 21, Gorecki further discloses wherein the tubular protective cover is a bucket (see fig. 1 ref. 10 showing a cylindrical vessel for holding liquids. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bucket.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6463943 B1 note annular spray head with variable nozzle angles in longitudinal direction.
US 6116255 A note longitudinal main tube with longitudinally adjustable nozzle and splash cover parallel to main tube.
US 4809722 A note longitudinal main tube, annular/spiral spray head with nozzles at multiple longitudinal positions and angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711