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 .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim7 be found allowable, claim8 is will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 line 1 "two edges (3, 3')" should read "two edges" . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 3 states “wherein said two edges run parallel in the in the x-y plane”. This is absent from the specification. There is no parallel description relative to an x-y axis in [0013]. Based on the figures, the two edges are angled in the Z-direction. There is no singular x-y plane in which the edges “run parallel”. Claims 4-9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 3 and are also rejected.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 9 discusses “Mirror Symmetry”
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 3-10 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 3 recites the limitation "said two edges" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 only discusses longitudinal straight edges. These edges are never given a quantity. It is unclear if this is referencing the same edges. Claims 4-9 directly or indirectly depend from claim 3 and are also rejected.
The term “horizontally” and “vertically” in claim 3 renders the claim indefinite. What is being considered horizontal? In the claim, horizontal is being used describe both the x-axis and the y-axis. It is unclear how both axes can be considered horizontal. Traditionally, horizontal is used to describe a singular axis/ direction. By association, the definition of “vertically” is also unclear.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said at least one edge" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 recites exactly two edges, how is there now “at least one edge”?
The term “symmetrically slanted, with rotational symmetry” in claims 7 and 8 renders the claim indefinite. What does this exactly mean? What is the symmetry relative to? How is there "rotational symmetry" on a rectangular object? It is unclear the exact limitation being placed by the statement. There doesn't appear to be any obvious line of symmetry in the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the x-axis" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Grimm (US 20140151249 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Grimm discloses a tool (100) for keeping plaster and scraping excess plaster off a trowel or the like tool, comprising an elongated trough with longitudinal inner walls (inside walls of 4 and 5) that extend to respective longitudinal straight edges (top edges of 4, 5) connected by two end walls (3, 6), a grip portion (40) underneath the trough, at least two feet (can consider bottom of 15, 16 or bottom of 8/9) underneath the trough on which the tool can rest with the trough facing upwardly, wherein said two longitudinal inner walls (inner walls of 4 and 5) extend downwardly towards each other, such that the trough has a substantially V- shaped cross-section .
Examiner Note: Consider cross section shown in all figures. Substantially V-shape can broadly have a flat bottom or resemble the configuration of figure 8.
PNG
media_image1.png
414
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
416
562
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Grimm discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein said grip portion comprises a material selected from plastic, rubber, silicon, leather, and synthetic leather. (page 3 [0035])
With respect to claim 11, Grimm discloses the tool according to claim 1, comprising at least one slit (12) arranged distally of either or both of said end walls, to fit and hold a plaster scraper.
Claim(s) 1, 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Whitnell (US 5575420 A).
With respect to claim 1, Whitnell discloses a tool for keeping plaster and scraping excess plaster off a trowel or the like tool, comprising an elongated trough with longitudinal inner walls (inner surfaces of 30, 32) that extend to respective longitudinal straight edges (top of 30, 32) connected by two end walls (22, 20), a grip portion (bottom surfaces of 10, such as 26, 36) underneath the trough, at least two feet (34 and edge between 22 and 36) underneath the trough on which the tool can rest with the trough facing upwardly, wherein said two longitudinal inner walls (inner surfaces of 30, 32) extend downwardly towards each other, such that the trough has a substantially V- shaped cross-section . (can see by V-shape of 20 and 22 in the blank of Figure 4)
PNG
media_image3.png
426
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein said two edges (top edges of 30, 32) run parallel in the in the x-y plane, where the x-axis runs horizontally along the longitudinal direction of the elongated trough and the y-axis runs horizontally orthogonal to the x-axis, wherein at least one of said edges is slanted vertically (slant as seen in figure 2).
With respect to claim 4, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said at least one edge is slanted from horizontal by an angle in the range from about 3° to about 10° and preferably in the range from about 4° to about 6°. (see note below)
Examiner Note: As it is, the horizontal is not a point of reference on the object. This does not state a slant from a bottom surface, etc. The horizontal can be an arbitrary point of reference that is angled with respect to the trough to meet the claimed language. Although a change in shape rationale is used, it is not necessary to dispute the current claim language, as the claim language is broad. Further, “horizontal” cannot correlate to the “horizontally” stated in claim 3. Firstly, there is no antecedent language. Secondly, claim 3 states that the x-axis runs horizontally along the longitudinal axis. Due to the nature of the claim language and using indirect relationships, the claims can be broadly read.
With respect to claim 5, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said two edges are oppositely slanted vertically and both edges are left-descending, such that each edge is slanted downwardly from right to left when viewing the side of the edge in side- view. (this is true when viewed in the opposite side from figure 2, so a mirror view of figure 2)
With respect to claim 6, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said two edges are oppositely slanted vertically and both edges are right-descending, such that each edge is slanted downwardly from left to right when viewing the side of the edge in side- view. (this is true of the view shown in figure 2)
With respect to claim 7, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said two edges are symmetrically slanted, with rotational symmetry around the center point of the tool. (if creating a longitudinal plane across Whitnell, both halves are symmetrical)
With respect to claim 8, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said two edges are symmetrically slanted, with rotational symmetry around the center point of the tool. (if creating a longitudinal plane across Whitnell, both halves are symmetrical)
With respect to claim 9, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 3, wherein said two edges are symmetrically slanted, with mirror symmetry across a x-z center plane of the tool, where the x-axis runs horizontally along the longitudinal direction of the elongated trough and the z-axis is vertical. (if creating a longitudinal plane across the center Whitnell, both halves are symmetrical. See 112b about mirror symmetry)
With respect to claim 10, Whitnell discloses the tool according to claim 1, wherein the bottom of said V-shaped trough forms a straight line that runs horizontally and is at an angle from the x-axis of the tool in the range of 3-8°. (see note below)
Examiner Note: the x-axis has no antecedent basis. As such, similar to claim 5, the x-axis can be an arbitrary point of reference that is angled with respect to the trough to meet the claimed language. Due to the nature of the claim language and using indirect relationships, the claims can be broadly read.
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(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (US 20140151249 A1) in view of Szasz (US 20120067906 A1).
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for comprising a main portion of a plastic material selected from polypropylene, polyethylene (including LLDPE, LDPE and in particular HDPE), polyamide (Nylon), polystyrene, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, acetal, polyphenylene sulfide, polyesters, acrylonitrile butadiene-styrene (ABS), and acetal polyesters. Grimm does not teach of the material of the main body. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely troughs/mud pans, Szasz taught of a mud pan that utilizes polyurethane due to its flexibility and memory retention (page 1 [008]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trough of Grimm to be made of polyurethane as taught by Szasz in order to allow for good flexibility and memory retention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grimm (US 20140151249 A1).
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein said edges and trough have a length in the range from about 20 to about 60 cm and preferably a length in the range from about 25 to about 40 cm. However these exact dimensions can be viewed as a change of shape of Grooms design and not novel in view of the guidelines established In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The application has presented no argument which shows that the particular configuration of length of the trough is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of serving as a trough member from Whitnells invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-5575420-A OR US-4923070-A OR US-4339068-A OR US-3857482-A OR US-2865547-A OR US-3651930-A OR US-6454124-B1 OR US-7988012-B2 OR US-6470129-B1 OR US-6491156-B1 OR US-4014074-A OR US-9932164-B1 OR US-5603428-A OR US-4164299-A OR US-20060086679-A1 OR US-20250172004-A1 OR US-20140151249-A1 OR US-20060169705-A1 OR US-20140319191-A1 OR US-20120067906-A1 OR US-20080000918-A1 OR US-4872723-A OR US-1798984-A OR US-1283627-A OR US-1063661-A OR US-0664241-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights