DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1 and 8, was entered on 2/27/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the opening of body member 20 in Daly does not receive the inner tube 16a or the distributor member 25 therethrough and, therefore, does not teach the limitations of amended claims 1 or 8. This is not persuasive. The office action does not equate the inner tube 16a or the distributor member 25 with the applicator; instead the applicator is the pad 11. In Daly, the pad 11 is received through the opening (i.e. claimed therethrough) of the faceplate 20 (see Fig. 3 where the pad is inserted into and received by the opening of the faceplate).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daly et al. (US 2018/0369860).
Claim 1: Daly teaches a tool for applying paint (i.e. claimed touching up) to a surface (Abst.), the tool comprising: a faceplate (20) on a distal end of the tool (Figs. 1 and 3) configured to be placed on a surface (5), the faceplate having an opening configured to surround a target region of the surface such that the coating is applied to the target region through the opening (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 where the region bounded by the square shape of 20 constitutes the opening in the faceplate 20) (¶¶ 0042-0043) and to receive an applicator (11) therethrough (Fig. 3); a handle (14) attached to and located proximally of the faceplate (Fig. 1); and a gap (i.e. claimed reservoir) (lower part of 24 in Fig. 3) located adjacent to the faceplate, the reservoir configured to collect excess of the coating (¶ 0047).
Claim 2: Daly further teaches a runoff portion (sides of 24 in Fig. 3) which directs excess coating to the reservoir (¶ 0047).
Claims 3 and 5: While Daly does not expressly use the term seal, Daly teaches that the faceplate has a shape which conforms to the shape of the surface (Fig. 1) and that a negative pressure is generated between the tool and the surface to ensure that any potential drips will be captured by the tool (¶ 0047). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that a seal was implicitly taught.
Claim 4: Daly teaches that the faceplate is configured to be detached via connector (19a) (¶ 0040).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in light of Chase et al. (US 2017/0136491).
Claim 6: Daly fails to teach how the faceplate is formed. Chase teaches a paint applicator tool (Abst.) and explains that the tool can be formed using injection molding or three dimensional printing (i.e. additive manufacturing) (¶ 0030). Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP § 2143. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have formed the faceplate of Daly using additive manufacturing with the predictable expectation of success.
Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly in light of Ling et al. (US 2012/0134737).
Claim 8: Daly teaches a tool for applying paint (i.e. claimed touching up) to a surface (Abst.), the tool comprising: a proximal end having a handle (14); and a distal end having a removable faceplate (20) (Figs. 1 and 3; ¶ 0040) which has an opening configured to surround a target region of the surface such that the coating is applied to the target region through the opening (see, e.g., Figs. 3 and 4 where the region bounded by the square shape of 20 constitutes the opening in the faceplate 20) (¶¶ 0042-0043) and to receive an applicator (11) therethrough (Fig. 3), the faceplate being removably coupled to the distal end (¶ 0040).
While Daly teaches that a seal is formed between the applicator and the surface in order to prevent excess paint from dripping (see, e.g., ¶ 0047 and the discussion of claim 3 above), Daly does not expressly teach that the faceplate comprises a seal which is coupled to a distal end of the faceplate. Ling teaches a paint applicator (Abst.) and explains that the applicator should include a sealing member coupled to the distal end of the applicator in order to contain and prevent paint from spilling to undesired areas (¶ 0113). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have included a sealing member coupled to the faceplate of Daly in order to have ensured that paint would not have spilled into undesired areas.
Claim 9: Daly teaches a gap (i.e. claimed reservoir) (lower part of 24 in Fig. 3) located adjacent to the faceplate, the reservoir configured to collect excess of the coating (¶ 0047).
Claim 10: Daly teaches an angled runoff portion (see the sides of 24 in Fig. 3) configured to direct excess paint away from the surface towards the reservoir (¶ 0047).
Claim 11: Daly teaches a drain in the reservoir (¶ 0039) which leads to an attachment (16b) which is configured to attach with a container (18) for collecting excess coating (Fig. 5).
Claim 12: Daly teaches that the handle extends linearly between two support members (13) (¶ 0036; Fig. 2).
Claim 13: Daly teaches that the faceplate is square (Fig. 4, e.g.).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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 A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights