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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Duddy (US 4,759,092; ‘092 reference herein).
Regarding claim 1, the ‘092 reference discloses a carpet pad removal tool (this is a statement of intended use—met by a showing of capability; here the industrial scaper is clearly capable of removing some amount of carpet pad). The ‘092 reference discloses a handle (10, 12, figures 1, 3, inter alia); and a headplate 20 figure 2) with a top side (up-facing side in figure 2) and an opposing bottom side (the underside of 20 shown in abutment contact joined to 10 figure 2) coupled to the handle, the headplate including a plurality of teeth (34 figure 3) along an edge of the headplate (see figure 3 which shows the edge of headplate face on), the edge of the headplate being angled relative to the rest of the headplate( See angle B figure 2, 18 relative to 20 figure 2); wherein the headplate is coupled to the handle with the handle positioned on the bottom side of the headplate without any part of the handle extending over the top side of the headplate (as seen in figure 2, none of the handle is above headplate 20).
Regarding claim 4. The ‘092 reference discloses the headplate further includes sides and edges that are rolled down or smoothed to prevent snagging on a backside of a carpet-- (the side and edge of the transition between 18 and 20, shown in figure 2 is a ‘rolled’ or bent edge and side as visibly shown therein) or smoothed to prevent snagging on a backside of a carpet (this is a statement of intended use—and does not define specific structure beyond ‘smooth’ or ‘rolled’ and is therefore clearly met by the 18/20 transition bend shown in figure 2—this is preventative of at least some amount of snagging, compared to a sharp or non-rounded corner). See In re Schreiber 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where a oil funnel was held capable of funneling popcorn even though there was no disclosure in the reference to popcorn, and the use as an oil funnel was wholly different to the alleged invention of popcorn dispensing. Here—it is not relevant that carpet is not discussed by the ‘092 reference, as it plainly shows the capability of sometimes not snagging ‘carpet’ which is also only being referenced in the broadest terms.
Regarding claim 5. The ‘092 reference discloses a bracket attached to the bottom side of the headplate (nut 24, washer beneath 24, or plate 18 may be considered a bracket—because bracket receives no special definition in the application, and therefore is understood according to its plain meaning, which is “an overhanging member that projects from a structure (such as a wall) and is usually designed to support a vertical load or to strengthen an angle”; and in this context all of 18, or the washer or the 24 nut would be ‘overhanging’ and would support a load; making them per se ‘brackets’), wherein a portion of the handle is coupled to the bracket on the bottom side of the headplate (16 abuts and is locked in place relative to 18 in figure 2, and is mounted in place by nut 24 or its washer—also as seen in figure 2).
Claim 11 is clearly met by the same art and reasoning as claim 1, set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, see B figure 2 of the ‘092 reference.
Regarding claim 15, The ‘092 reference discloses the headplate further includes sides and edges that are rolled down (the side and edge of the transition between 18 and 20, shown in figure 2 is a ‘rolled’ or bent edge and side as visibly shown therein) or smoothed to prevent snagging on a backside of a carpet (this is a statement of intended use—and does not define specific structure beyond ‘smooth’ or ‘rolled’ and is therefore clearly met by the 18/20 transition bend shown in figure 2—this is preventative of at least some amount of snagging, compared to a sharp or non-rounded corner). See In re Schreiber 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) where a oil funnel was held capable of funneling popcorn even though there was no disclosure in the reference to popcorn, and the use as an oil funnel was wholly different to the alleged invention of popcorn dispensing. Here—it is not relevant that carpet is not discussed by the ‘092 reference, as it plainly shows the capability of sometimes not snagging ‘carpet’ which is also only being referenced in the broadest terms.
Claim 16 is met by the same art and discussion as claim 5 noted above.
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) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duddy (US 4,759,092; ‘092 reference herein) as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 11, inter alia, in view of Neff (US 5,915,794).
Regarding claims 2 and 12 the ‘092 reference does not discuss the handle is extendable.
Extendable handles provide the common sense and readily apparent benefit of increased and adjustable leverage, due to the lever length. Neff (US 5,915,794) demonstrates one particular arrangement known in the art with an extendable/telescopic handle. Neff notes “The embodiment of the invention shown there is a hand scraper 10, comprising six parts: a blade 12, a blade clamping head 14, a telescopically extendable and contractible shaft 16,20, a bracket 24 [rotatably] mounted [at] a second end of the shaft, a knurled metal handle 28 mounted in the bracket, and fasteners 30, 32, 34 and 36 to hold the blade in the clamping head and bracket at a desired angle relative to each other. If desired, the shaft can be made solid and non-telescopic for added rigidity and sturdiness.” This shows that selection of telescopic, or not is a routine decision made by those of ordinary skill. Here substituting a telescopic handle for the non-telescopic handle of the ‘092 reference would have been obvious at the time the application was filed, because it serves the commons sense benefit of increasing leverage and reach, and also was known to be a substitute in the same field with non-telescopic handles as evidenced by Neff.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duddy (US 4,759,092; ‘092 reference herein) as set forth above with respect to claims 1, 11, inter alia, in view of US 8,522,649 (‘649 reference) and Sukhovitsky (US 2012/0261148) .
Regarding claims 3 and 14, ‘092 reference does not show the edge of the headplate is angled relative to the headplate so the teeth extend away from the bottom side of the headplate and toward the handle, as best understood. The angle described and claimed appears to be an acute angle with respect to the handle—where ‘092 reference uniformly uses an obtuse angle for the direction of the scraping teeth.
In the art of scraping tools which are meant to destroy the substrate being scraped (like ‘092 reference, and Sukhovitsky) the choice of angle is one that a person of ordinary skill would be expected to make, based on the scraping movement. ‘092 reference is meant for a pushing scrape, where Sukhovitsky is meant for a pulling scrape. Sukhovitsky shows sharp scraping teeth 9/12 which are pointed back from a headplate, so they are both down and towards the handle as claimed.
In the art of scrapers—it is known to provide both/ either angle in a tool, since both angles are useful in scraping operations—see US 8,522,649 which shows a scraper with obtuse (L figure 4) and acute (H figure 4) sides to the same handle (20 figure 1).
In that context, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the angle of ‘092 reference with an acute/ backfacing tooth direction, as taught by Sukhovitsky, in light of the evidence that both angle types were known in the art for the same purpose (positioning scraping teeth) and that those of ordinary skill recognized that both were useful (‘649 reference)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: there is no evidence to suggest that carpet pad removal from under an in situ carpet is a known process. The claims are directed to this process, which is not known or obvious. A review of the relevant art of carpet pad removal shows without exception that carpet is removed before the pad is removed—because it would be impossible to remove pad to the extent needed without removing the carpet—the claimed method alleges to provide a solution to a problem which is not recognized in the art as a problem—as the carpet is always removed in order to remove carpet underlayment pad.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724