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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 thereof there is a period after “neck”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The phrase “said barrel section” in claim 2 lacks antecedent basis.
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(s) 1-3, 6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DePaola JR. et al. (2014/0014542). The paintbrush storage and protection device of DePaola has all of the features of the claimed protective case as follows:
The paintbrush storage and protection device of Paolo can hold some brush as functionally claimed, for example, in the preamble of claim 1.
The claimed hollow body reads on enclosure 102 that as can be seen in DePaolo has a pair of hingedly interconnected body sections (base 106 and top 108). The claimed barrel can be the larger portion of the body that holds the paintbrush head as shown in Fig 12, and the claimed neck can be the narrower portion of the body that holds the paintbrush handle, as also shown in the same figure.
The claimed resilient bushing can be the two-part seal that is formed of complementary bushing sections 104A and 104B, and that can be seen to be received by a channel in the neck, as also claimed. The bushing has a passageway extending longitudinally therethrough as perhaps most clearly seen at the end of the lead line from numeral 120 in Fig 1.
In view of the above commentary it can be appreciated how the features in the last paragraph of claim 1 and in dependent claims not specifically mentioned below are met by DePaolo. The examiner notes once more, for emphasis, that the DePaolo protective case can hold some round hairbrush as functionally recited in the claims.
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that DePaolo intends for his bushing to fit snugly around the handle of his paintbrush. However, given that the hairbrush is only functionally recited in the subject application claims, the Paolo bushing sections are found to be capable of resiliently interengaging and gripping the handle of some round hairbrush as functionally claimed.
The closure and closure components of claim 12 are latching mechanisms 130 and/or 133 and their disclosed components.
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) 4-5, 9-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DePaola. DePaola may not disclose the specific features of the claims, however, the prior art of record shows them all to be conventional or well within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide. For example, different types of hinges including the one claimed in claim 11 are conventional in the relevant art. In another example, it is well within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the relevant art to shape a container and parts thereof based on the shape of the container content. The prior art of record shows semi-cylindrical container sections to hold cylindrical container content to be conventional. See Anderson (2012/0284939).
Not only that, but regarding the claimed shape of the bushing sections, DePaola expressly teaches that his bushing sections can be the same shape or can be other shapes than those specifically shown in the reference. See the bottom of [0036]. Regarding the specifically claimed hinge, such as in claim 11, DePaola also expressly discloses that the living hinge of his apparatus is preferable, which suggests that it is not mandatory.
Thus, it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of DePaolo with the missing claim elements, such as semi-cylindrical barrell half-sections, bushing sections and neck half-sections, in order to adapt the container of Paolo to fit better around round content such as round brushes, or to provide a more attractive apparatus. Likewise, it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of DePaolo with the specific hinges of claim 11 and the closure release of claim 14 for the purposes of providing a more attractive or more economical apparatus.
Claims 7, 8 and 15 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736