DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/6/2024 is being considered.
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, 4, and 5are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Labelle (US 1,071,758).
Regarding claim 1, Labelle discloses a scraper comprising:
a blade body (Item 1) defining a rear end and a front end (Figure 3 bottom of page) opposite the rear end, wherein the blade body is provided with an end face at the front end, wherein the end face has a first edge connected to a bottom surface and a second edge connected to a top surface opposite the bottom surface, wherein the top surface is provided with a plurality of grooves (Item 2), wherein each of the plurality of grooves has a first end connected to the end face and a second end extended toward the rear end, wherein a first thickness is formed between the first edge and the second edge, wherein a second thickness is formed between the first edge and the first end, and wherein the second thickness is less than the first thickness (Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Labelle discloses the scraper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blade body further defines a left side and a right side, and wherein the second edge of the end face and the first ends of the plurality of grooves collectively form a wavy pattern extending from the left side to the right side (Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Labelle discloses the scraper as claimed in claim 1, wherein the blade body is further provided with a bottom plane and an top plane parallel to each other, wherein the bottom plane is connected to one side of the bottom surface opposite to the end face, wherein the top plane is connected to one side of the top surface opposite to the end face, wherein a third thickness is formed between the bottom plane and the top plane, and wherein the third thickness is greater than twice the first thickness and less than three times the first thickness (Item 8 gives a greater thickness than just Item 1. Further, first and second planes are imaginary planes, which means as long as they are parallel and at different thicknesses, they would meet the limitations of the claim).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labelle (US 1,071,758) in view of Darby (US 2,626,520).
Regarding claim 2, Labelle discloses the scraper as claimed in claim 1. Labelle fails to explicitly disclose wherein the second thickness is less than 0.6 times the first thickness and greater than 0.3 times the first thickness.
Darby teaches a scraper wherein the second thickness is less than 0.6 times the first thickness and greater than 0.3 times the first thickness (Column 2 Lines 20-25 and Column 3 Lines 5-18).
Darby gives an example of how different effluent products require different thicknesses. Thus, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. Therefore since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Labelle in view of Darby it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the second thickness is less than 0.6 times the first thickness and greater than 0.3 times the first thickness. Further in the instant application Paragraphs 17 applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labelle (US 1,071,758) in view of Davis (US 3,119,138)
Regarding claim 3, Labelle discloses the scraper as claimed in claim 1. Labelle fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bottom surface and the top surface are both in a planar structure, wherein an angle is formed between the bottom surface and the top surface, and wherein the angle is greater than 5 degrees and less than 15 degrees.
Davis teaches a scraper wherein the bottom surface and the top surface are both in a planar structure, wherein an angle is formed between the bottom surface and the top surface. (Figures 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Labelle to have the surfaces inclined toward each other to form an angle as taught by Davis. Such a modification would allow for the blade to bend across uneven surfaces while the grooves are sized to properly meter the effluent material (Column 3 Lines 30-72). Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle in which the top surface and the lower surface meet to be between wherein the angle is greater than 5 degrees and less than 15 degrees. Such a modification is viewed as a change in shape, which has been held to be of routine by one skilled in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). User’s would want thinner, more bendable blades if the surface they intended to work upon was more uneven. In the instant application there is no criticality given to the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights