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 .
Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103
1. 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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication (2005/0120501) to Rivadeneira.
Regarding independent claim 1, Rivadeneira teaches a rigid frame (14); a first shaft member (11) rotatably supported on the rigid frame (14) and arranged to support the first roller sleeve (17) thereon for rotation with the first shaft member (11) relative to the rigid frame (14) about a first roller axis (at numeral 12 horizontal axis in FIG. 5) (See paragraphs [0041]-[0044] and FIGS. 4-6);
a second shaft member (111) rotatably supported on the rigid frame (14) and arranged to support the second roller sleeve (117) thereon for rotation with the second shaft member (111) relative to the rigid frame (14) about a second roller axis (at numeral 124 vertical axis in FIG. 6), in which the second roller axis (at numeral 124 vertical axis in FIG. 6) is parallel to the first roller axis (at numeral 12 horizontal axis in FIG. 5) and spaced from the first roller axis (at numeral 12 horizontal axis in FIG. 5) within a common plane (horizontal axis in FIG. 5) of the first and second roller axes (See paragraph [0045]);
and a handle body (115) arranged to be gripped in a hand of a user, the handle body (115) being elongated along a handle axis (vertical axis), in which the handle body (115) is mounted in fixed orientation relative to the rigid frame (14) such that the handle axis (vertical axis) extends transversely to the common plane of the first and second roller axes (horizontal axis);
with the handle axis (vertical axis) lies in a handle plane oriented perpendicularly to each of the first (at numeral 12 horizontal axis in FIG. 5) and second roller axes (at numeral 124 vertical axis in FIG. 6); and
Except, Rivadeneira is silent regarding that the handle axis lies at a fixed inclination of between 25 and 70 degrees from the common plane of the first and second roller axes. is silent regarding that the handle axis lies at a fixed inclination of between 25 and 70 degrees from the common plane of the first and second roller axes. Although FIG. 6appears to show the vertical axis at least at an inclination of at least 70 degrees; however, it is not clear but modifying the vertical axis to be at least 70 degrees between the common plane or intermediate common plane would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the handle axis at an intermediate point in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting (See paragraph [0048] of Rivadeneira).
Regarding claim 3, Rivadeneira is silent regarding that the handle axis lies at a fixed inclination of between 40 and 70 degrees from the common plane of the first and second roller axes. Although FIG. 4 appears to show the vertical axis at least at an inclination of at least 70 degrees; however, it is not clear but modifying the vertical axis to be at least 70 degrees between the common plane or intermediate common plane would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the handle axis at an intermediate point in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting.
Regarding claim 4, Rivadeneira is silent regarding that the handle axis lies at a fixed inclination within a range of 25 to 40 degrees from the common plane of the first and second roller axes. However, modifying the vertical axis to be at least 40 degrees between the common plane would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the handle axis at an between the vertical axis point in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting.
Regarding claim 5, Rivadeneira teaches that the handle body (115) includes a threaded socket (23) formed therein so as to be arranged for attachment to an extension pole (See paragraph [0045]), but is silent regarding that the handle axis lies at a fixed inclination of between 40 and 75 degrees from the common plane of the first and second roller axes. Although FIG. 5 appears to show the vertical axis at least at an inclination of at least 75 degrees; however, it is not clear but modifying the vertical axis to be at least 75 degrees between the common plane or intermediate common plane would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the handle axis at an intermediate point in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting.
Regarding claim 6, Rivadeneira is silent regarding that the first and second roller axes (horizontal axes) are spaced apart from one another by a distance within a range of 3 to 4 inches. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the first and second roller axes to be apart 3 to 4 inches in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting.
Regarding claim 7, Rivadeneira teaches that the handle axis (vertical axis) intersects the common plane of the first and second roller axes (horizontal axis in FIG. 4) adjacent to the second roller axis (at numeral 13 in FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Rivadeneira teaches that the handle axis (vertical axis) intersects the common plane (horizontal axis) of the first and second roller axes at a location spaced from the second roller axis (at numeral 13 in FIG. 5) in a direction opposite to the first roller axis (horizontal axis at numeral 24 in FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Rivadeneira teaches the rigid frame (14) includes a crossbar (13) spanning between the first and second roller axes (horizontal axis in FIG. 5 See paragraph [0042]-[0045]) within the common plane and supporting the first (11) and second shaft members (111) rotatably thereon;
and a transverse frame member (12) extending linearly between a first end connected to the crossbar (13) within the common plane and a second end supporting the handle body (115) thereon; wherein the second end of the transverse frame member (12) is (i) spaced from the common plane (horizontal plane) of the first and second roller axes and (ii) centrally located in an axial direction of the first and second shaft members (11, 111) (See FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Rivadeneira teaches with the first and second roller sleeves (17, 117) supported on the first and second shaft members (11, 111) respectively, the first and second roller sleeves (17, 117) but is silent regarding being spaced apart from one another by a distance equal to or less than one inch. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art absent criticality in the specification to modify Rivadeneira to include the first and second roller axes to be apart by one inch in order to adjust the roller positioning for different areas for painting.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
3. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL D. JENNINGS whose telephone number is (571)270-1536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30pm. 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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
MICHAEL DEANGILO. JENNINGS
Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/MICHAEL D JENNINGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
