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 3 and 4 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 claim 1, “substantially flat,” is supported by the description (face 114a parallel to the wall and perpendicular to the floor during use) but may benefit from clarifying parameters.
Regarding claim 3, “a hole extending into the top section of the top section of the base,” creates ambiguity, as to the top section of the base. Examiner reads this as a typographical error and for the purpose of examination, reads it as, “a hole extending into the top section of the base.”
Regarding claim 4, “…the cove base groover tool…, wherein the blade section of the cove base groove tool is inserted…” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, examiner reads “the cove base groover tool is inserted…” as is consistent with claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sandoval (USPGPUB 20060182487; “Sandoval”).
Regarding claim 1, Sandoval discloses in at least figs. 2-4, a handheld rollable tool [10] for installing a cove base molding [36] along a bottom portion of a wall [38] adjacent to a floor [40], comprising: a base [28] having a top section [46] and a bottom section [42], wherein the top section [46] is in the form of a handle that is configured to be gripped by a user’s hand [see paragraph 26]; a plurality of rotatable wheels [48] attached [see paragraph 30] to the bottom section [42] of the base [28], wherein the plurality of rotatable wheels [48] is configured to allow the handheld rollable tool [10] to roll back and forth along the wall [38] and the floor [40] when the handheld rollable tool [10] is being used for installing the cove base molding [36]; a baseplate [26] attached to the bottom section [42] of the base [28] and extending outwardly away from the base [28], wherein the baseplate [26] has a substantially flat exterior face [30] that is parallel to the wall [38] and perpendicular to the floor [40] when the handheld rollable tool [10] is nestled up against the wall [38] and the floor [40].
The examiner notes that both the preamble and the body of the claim recite that the tool is “for installing a cove base molding.” Pursuant to MPEP § 2111.02, the preamble must be read in the context of the entire claim. As stated in the MPEP, “statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference… between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.” In this case, the examiner finds no structural difference between the claimed tool and the tool disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, since the Sandoval reference discloses a tool that is capable of being used to install a cove base molding, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 2, Sandoval discloses in at least figures 2-4, the handheld rollable tool [10] further comprising a felt, a textile material, or a combination thereof [22], positioned on and covering the flat exterior face [30].
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoval.
Regarding claim 8, Sandoval discloses in at least figures 2-4, an apparatus that can function to install cove base molding. But is silent to the exact method for installing cove base molding [36] along a bottom portion of a wall [38] adjacent to a floor [40], the method comprising the steps of: providing a handheld rollable tool [10] according to claim 1; providing a strip of cove base molding [36], wherein the strip of cove base molding [36] has a frontside and a backside; applying an adhesive to the backside of the strip of cove base molding; positioning the backside of strip of cove base molding with the applied adhesive along the bottom portion of the wall adjacent to the floor [40]; nestling the handheld rollable tool [10] against the bottom of the wall [38] and the floor [40]; and rolling the handheld rollable tool [10] back and forth along the wall [38] while applying an inward force [not found] against the wall [38] so as to thereby adhere the base cove molding [36] to the bottom portion of the wall [38].
However, the examiner takes official notice that Applicant’s recited method is obvious in light of Sandoval’s apparatus, coupled with the knowledge of POSITA. It is well known in the art that vinyl/rubber cove base is installed by applying adhesive to the backside and pressing it to the wall; Official Notice is taken of this conventional practice in building trades (MPEP § 2144.03). It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to employ adhesive to affix the cove base molding disclosed by Sandoval to the wall, as doing so is a routine and predictable technique for securing such molding, yielding a predictable result (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007); MPEP § 2143). While Sandoval may not verbatim recite “applying an inward force,” a user necessarily applies inward (wall-normal) pressure when rolling the tool to seat and bond adhesive-backed molding; this is a conventional step in adhesive molding installation to ensure wet-out and adhesion. It would have been obvious to perform the rolling with inward pressure to achieve proper bonding, as this is a well-known, predictable use of the tool for its intended purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Sandoval’s apparatus in the recited method since (i) cove base molding is commonly secured by backside adhesive, and (ii) rolling with inward pressure is the routine method to ensure contact and adhesion along the length of the molding; the combination merely applies a known method (adhesive installation) to the known device (Sandoval’s installer tool) to achieve predictable results—namely, affixing the cove base to the wall in a clean, efficient manner (KSR; MPEP § 2143), and Sandoval’s apparatus will increase the speed at which the cove can be attached to the wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the prior art recites tools to help smooth and affix adhesive to a wall. See for example US PGPUBs 20210290028 to Martinez and 20120000160 to Herbert. Also, USPNs 10806320 to Welbourne, 5971453 to Schilsner, 5371912 to Hall, and 5316614 to Phillips and 4949604 to Squires, and 3617082 to Sparks.
However, the prior art fails to motivate or disclose a handheld rollable tool comprising a hole extending into the top section of the top section of the base, wherein the hole is sized and configured to receive a blade section of a cove base groover tool, in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855