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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the inner surface of the peripheral wall sloping inwardly along a longitudinal axis of the housing form the upper portion to the lower portion in claims 2-3; wherein each of the brushes are unadhered to the peripheral wall in claim 7, the neck portion in claims 17-18; and the downwardly extending portion of the cap in claims 16-18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-3, 7, 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 specification 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 2-3 recite “the inner surface of the peripheral wall sloping inwardly along a longitudinal axis of the housing form the upper portion to the lower portion”. The recitation has been rejected as new matter. The recitation was first disclosed in this application, which is a continuation of application 17/541,971. The recitation was not disclosed in the original applicant and the figures [9, 14-15] at best show only the outer surface sloping inwardly. There is no evidence of the inner surface sloping inwardly.
Claim 7 recites “wherein each of the brushes are unadhered to the peripheral wall”. The recitation has been rejected as new matter. The recitation was first disclosed in this application, which is a continuation of application 17/541,971. The recitation was not disclosed in the original specification. Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. MPEP 2173.05(i). Furthermore, the limitation diverges from fig. 6, where the brushes 116 are clearly adhered to the peripheral wall 109 [fig. 5], and from figs. 4-5, where brushes 116 are adhered to peripheral wall 109 by brackets 117.
For these reasons the claim has been rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “four brushes…at least one of the brushes being configured to impart a greater force on the ball that the other three brushes”. This is unclear since there can’t be more than one brush imparting a greater force than the other three brushes.
Claim 4 recites “wherein two of the brushes being configured to impart a greater force on the ball than another two brushes”. This limitation broadens the claims from the previous limitation in claim 1 as discussed above.
Claims 2-3, 5-18 are rejected by dependency.
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(s) 1-6, 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyluk US 5,638,567 in view of Matthews US 2005/0188482 and Llerena US 5,900,069.
Re claims 1, 4, Danyluk discloses a ball-washing device [figs. 1-8 comprising:
a housing [12, 26] comprising:
a top wall 26;
a bottom wall 16;
a peripheral wall [peripheral wall of housing 12] having an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface extending between the top wall 26 and the bottom wall to define a cavity of the housing; the top wall having an opening shaped to receive a ball into the cavity [figs. 1-5].,
a pair of guides 30 including a first guide and a second guide, the first guide being positioned on the peripheral wall and the second guide being positioned on the peripheral wall opposed to the first guide, each guide extending in a direction between the opening and the bottom wall [fig. 5]; and
brushes 32/33 positioned within the cavity of the housing, each of the brushes positioned adjacent to the inner surface of the peripheral wall [fig. 4], each brush:
extending from the top wall to the bottom wall within the cavity in the direction between the opening and the bottom wall [fig. 4]; and
a plunger 34 comprising:
a body portion having:
a pair of side edges, each side edge being configured to engage with a respective guide of the pair of guides when the body portion is inserted into and removed from the cavity [figs. 1-5];
a resting portion 46 to retain the ball as the body portion moves within the housing;
bristles having a perimeter surface being inward from the peripheral wall and continuous in the direction between the opening and the bottom wall [“[a]brasive ball cleaning medium 32 is in the form of a rubber substrate upon which is mounted bristles “]
at least one of the brushes being configured to impart a greater force on the ball than another two of the brushes as the ball travels in the housing [figs. 6-7, “golf ball 68 rotates due to a difference in the friction force applied by abrasive cleaning medium 32 and 33”]; and
a cap 50 rotatably coupled to the body portion [“top cap is rotatably mounted to the first end of the plunger.”] and configured to rotate relative to the body portion to secure the plunger to the housing when the body portion is in the cavity [fig. 2].
Danyluk does not disclose specifically four brushes, where the brushes have bristles forming a convex perimeter surface, and wherein two of the brushes are configured to impart a greater force on the ball than another two of the brushes as the ball travels in the housing.
Mathews teaches golf ball cleaning tool with four convex brushes 49 [fig. 10]. It is noted that Applicant did not disclose the significance of having specifically four convex brushes.
Llerena teaches selecting the length and stiffness of the bristles to cause rotation of the golf ball in a golf ball washer [col. 3, ll. 55-62].
Thus, Danyluk and Matthews, each disclose a golf ball washing device. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the brushes of Matthews could have been substituted for the brushes of Danyluk because both serve the purpose of providing cleaning to a golf ball. Furthermore, Llerena teaches different ways to accomplish Danyluk’s purpose of rotating the ball while cleaning, by using different lengths and/or stiffnesses. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution that achieves the predictable result of washing thoroughly a golf ball.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the brushes of Mathhews for the brushes of Danyluk according to known methods, as discussed by Llerena, to yield the predictable result of providing of causing rotation of the golf ball inside the cleaning tool so that all sides are scrubbed, and since it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP 2144.05 VI B.
Re claims 2-3, Danyluk further teaches wherein the housing has a first width at an upper portion of the housing and a second width at a lower portion of the housing, the first width being greater than the second width, and the outer surface of the peripheral wall sloping inwardly along a longitudinal axis of the housing from the upper portion to the lower portion [figs. 2-3 show sloping].
With regards to “the inner surface of the peripheral wall sloping inwardly along a longitudinal axis of the housing form the upper portion to the lower portion”, it is noted that Applicant did not disclose the significance of having the inner surface sloping inwardly. As a matter of fact, there seem to be no evidence Applicant disclosed the limitation [see 112a rejection above]. Therefore, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an inner surface of the peripheral wall sloping inwardly along a longitudinal axis of the housing form the upper portion to the lower portion, since it has been held that matters relating to changes in shape only would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV B
Re claim 5, Danyluk further teaches wherein:
each convex [taught by Matthews] perimeter surface of each of the four [taught by Matthews] brushes 32/33 extends inwardly from the inner surface of the peripheral wall by a first distance [fig. 5];
each of the first guide and the second guide 30 extends inwardly from the inner surface of the peripheral wall by a second distance [fig. 5]; and
the first distance is greater than the second distance [fig. 5].
Re claim 6, Matthews further teaches wherein each of the brushes is positioned to be equidistant from each other within the cavity.
Re claim 9, Danyluk further teaches wherein each guide of the pair of guides 30 defines a slot configured to receive one of the pair of side edges to guide the plunger 3 as the plunger slides within the cavity.
Re claim 10, Danyluk further teaches wherein a lower portion of each of the guide members extends inwardly [towards the plunger] from an inner surface of the bottom wall to engage sides of the plunger 34 as the plunger passes through the opening.
Re claim 12, Danyluk further teaches wherein the plunger 34 has a width that is less than a diameter of the opening [fig. 3].
Re claim 13, Danyluk further teaches wherein the housing includes a collar 22 having a slot [slot for threads 60] and the cap is configured to be rotatably secured to the housing via the slot.
Re claim 14, Danyluk further teaches wherein the cap includes one or more projections 60 configured to be received in the slot.
Claim(s) 7-8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyluk US 5,638,567 in view of Matthews US 2005/0188482 and Llerena US 5,900,069 and in further view of Eichhorn US 3,304,659.
Re claims 7-8, 11, Danyluk and Matthews further teach wherein each of the brushes are unadhered to the peripheral wall [see 112a rejection above, insofar as the brush backs are between the brushes 6 and the peripheral wall].
Even if conceding that there may be adhesion between the brushes and the peripheral wall in Danyluk and Matthews, and further, the combination of Danyluk as rejected in the previous section above does not teach wherein each of the brushes are secured to the top wall, and wherein the guide members extend upwardly to an upper edge of a collar of the housing.
Applicant did not disclose the significance of any these limitations other than they are design features.
Eichhorn teaches brackets 15 secured to the top wall 7, and wherein the guide members 11 extend upwardly to an upper edge of a collar of the housing.
It would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the brushes unadhered to the peripheral wall, the top wall secured to the top wall, and the guide members extend upwardly to an upper edge of a collar of the housing since it has been held that matters relating to changes in shape and rearranging parts of an apparatus that would not modify the operation of the apparatus, would have been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV B, MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Claim(s) 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danyluk US 5,638,567 in view of Matthews US 2005/0188482 and Llerena US 5,900,069 and in further view of Derkocz US 3,101,497.
Re claims 15-18, the combination above teaches the invention as discussed but fail to teach wherein the cap is coupled to the body portion by a cap fastener to provide for the cap to rotate relative to the body portion; and the cap fastener passes through an aperture in a neck portion of the body of the plunger.
However, Derkocz teaches a golf washing device comprising a cap 24 coupled to the body portion 40 by a cap fastener 46 to provide for the cap to rotate relative to the body portion 40 and the cap fastener 46 passes through an aperture in a neck portion 42 of the body of the plunger.
Thus, Danyluk and Derkocz each disclose fastening means for the cap and plunger. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the fastening means of Derkocz could have been substituted for the fastening means of Danyluk because both serve the purpose of providing fastening between the cap and the plunger. The substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing relative rotation between the cap and the plunger.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fastening means of Dercocz for the fastening mans of Danyuk according to known methods to yield the predictable result of allowing relative rotation between the cap and the plunger.
With regards to the limitations of “wherein the cap fastener is received in a downwardly extending portion of the cap” and “wherein the neck portion surrounds the downward extending portion from the cap”, Applicant did not disclose the significance of having such limitation, and it appears the invention would work exactly the same with or without a neck portion surrounding a downward extension portion coming from the cap.
Therefore, it would have been a matter of obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a neck portion surrounding a downward extending portion from the cap, since it has been held that matters relating to changes in shape and rearranging parts of an apparatus that would not modify the operation of the apparatus, would have been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant. MPEP 2144.04 IV B, MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Carlos A. Rivera whose telephone number is (571)270-5697. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -4PM.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
C. A. R.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3723
/C. A. RIVERA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights