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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: "the second body segment" in lines 5 and 7 should read "the second bisected body segment". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: "a cap coupled to the end of the nozzle" in line 5 should read a cap coupled to an end of the nozzle"". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 11-12 and 17 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 "the centering protrusion is conical" in lines 1-2. However, no centering protrusion is referenced prior. Examiner presumes centering protrusion is referring to centering protrusion member in claim 1. Hence, the limitation is read as “the centering protrusion member is conical”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first segment" in line 4. No first segment has been referenced prior. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “the first body segment”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the removing member" in lines 2 and 3. No removing member has been referenced prior. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “the surface removing member”.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "to fasten the fastener to the body" in line 6. It is unclear which fastener is being referred to as line 4 of claim has established a set of fasteners. For examination purposes, the limitation is read as “to fasten a fastener from the set of fasteners to the body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parker (US 4,121,337 A).
Regarding claim 1, Parker a textured drywall surface repair apparatus (10 in Figures 1-2; col. 3, line 63 to co. 4, line 1, sheet 22 of wallboard comprising gypsum 36…having layer of acoustic ceiling material) comprising:
a centering protrusion member extending along a longitudinal axis (upper end 12 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2; col. 2, lines 53-55, incorporates at its center (axis) a reaming and centralizing element 11);
a body extending along the longitudinal axis (inner portion of centralizing element 11);
a surface removing member (lower end 13 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2) proximally disposed to a distal end of the centering protrusion member (as shown in Figures 1-2, lower end 13 is proximally to distal end of upper end 12) configured to create a cavity with a predetermined cross-sectional area when rotated about the longitudinal axis (lower end 13 comprises blades 16 which create circular recess 27 when rotated; col. 3, lines 53-58); and,
a surface interface plane member (disc 17 in Figures 1-2) disposed proximally to a distal end of the surface removing member and at least partially radially outward from the surface removing member (as shown in Figures 1-2, disc 17 is proximal to distal end of lower end 13 and radially outward therefrom) such that the cavity is limited to a predetermined depth (height of lower end 13).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted the thickness of a material in which the cavity is made relates to the material being worked upon by the tool (i.e., .e., apparatus). It is well settled that the intended uses of and the particular material used in a coating apparatus have no significance in determining patentability of apparatus claims. Ex parte Thibault, 164 U.S.P.Q. 666 (Bd. Pat. App. 1969). A recitation with respect to manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claimed, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647. Nonetheless, Parker discloses the predetermined depth (i.e., height of lower end 13) is less than a thickness of a material in which the cavity is made (21, 27 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Parker further discloses the centering protrusion [member?] is conical (as shown in Figures 1-2, upper end 12 is conically shaped).
Regarding claim 6, Parker further discloses the surface interface plane member comprises a circular tab revolving around the longitudinal axis of the centering protrusion member (as shown in Figures 1-2, body 17 is circular and revolves around the longitudinal axis of upper end 12 (i.e., centering protrusion member)).
Regarding claim 7, Parker further discloses the centering protrusion member is affixed to the surface interface plane member (Figures 1-2, centralizing element 11 (and upper end 12) is affixed to body 17).
Regarding claim 9, Parker further discloses the body further comprises a blending member on an opposing side of the centering protrusion member extending along the longitudinal axis (19 in Figures 1-2, satisfies ‘blending member’ as evidenced by paragraph 0034 of the published application as a projection having a curved surface or flat edge).
Regarding claim 14, Parker teaches a surface repair kit (Figure 6; col. 4, lines 57-68, patch and the tool are sold as kit) comprising:
a textured drywall surface repair apparatus (10 in Figures 1-2; col. 3, line 63 to co. 4, line 1, sheet 22 of wallboard comprising gypsum 36…having layer of acoustic ceiling material) comprising:
a centering protrusion member extending along a longitudinal axis (upper end 12 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2; col. 2, lines 53-55, incorporates at its center (axis) a reaming and centralizing element 11);
a body extending along the longitudinal axis (inner portion of centralizing element 11);
a surface removing member (lower end 13 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2) proximally disposed to a distal end of the centering protrusion member (as shown in Figures 1-2, lower end 13 is proximally to distal end of upper end 12) configured to create a cavity with a predetermined cross-sectional area when rotated about the longitudinal axis (lower end 13 comprises blades 16 which create circular recess 27 when rotated; col. 3, lines 53-58); and,
a surface interface plane member (disc 17 in Figures 1-2) disposed proximally to a distal end of the surface removing member and at least partially radially outward from the surface removing member (as shown in Figures 1-2, disc 17 is proximal to distal end of lower end 13 and radially outward therefrom) such that the cavity is limited to a predetermined depth (height of lower end 13); and,
at least one surface repair patch (patch 29 in Figure 3) comprising:
at least one wall patch comprising at least one side having a predetermined drywall texture (coating 32; col. 4, lines 21-30).
Regarding claim 15, Parker further discloses at least one wall patch is selected from a wall patch sheet (col. 4, lines 23-30).
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker.
Regarding claim 5, Parker teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the surface removing member comprises an abrasive material. However, Parker discloses the surface removing member (lower end 13) comprises scraping blades (16 in Figures 1-2) which are rounded to preventing cutting (col. 3, lines 15-29). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have provided the scraping blades as plastic (i.e., an abrasive material) to facilitate removing of material from the cavity with cutting.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker, in view of Gilbreath (US 5,269861 A).
Regarding claim 16, Parker teaches all the elements of claim 14, but does not disclose a brush; and a container containing a predetermined amount of plaster.
Gilbreath teaches a kit (Figures 2, 5; col. 4, line 54 to col. 5, line 2) for repairing drywall (col. 1, lines 10-12), comprising: the use of a patch (patch member 32 in Figure 4-5), brush (col. 5, lines 21-22), and an amount of plaster (Figure 2, claim 9, is mixed with plaster). Hence, the use of a brush and plaster is known in the art for repairing of drywall. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the invention of Parker with a brush and a container containing a predetermined amount of plaster and each element would merely perform that same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognized providing a brush and plaster to the kit of Parker would have been predictable. One would have been motivated to provide a brush and plaster to enable the customer means for filling and feathering the seams of the patch/cavity, as is conventional in the art.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker, in view of Brennan (US 2014/0261091 A1) and Ginocchetti (US 2021/0121645 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Parker teaches all the elements of claim 14, but does not disclose disposable releasably coupled modular single use plaster containers comprising:
at least one container containing predetermined amount of plaster fluid;
at least one nozzle with a predetermined cross area at an end of the container; and
a cap coupled to [an] end of the nozzle configured such that the cap may be decoupled from the nozzle to dispense the predetermined cross area of plaster fluid when the container is squeezed.
Brennan teaches plaster patching ready-for-use compositions packaged in a single-use package, including for example, a tube, a container or bottle, a bucket, a pail, a jar, or the like (paragraph 0104). Further, the plaster patching compositions may be provided in a kit (paragraph 0103). Hence, providing single-use containers of plaster is known. Brennan does not disclose the single-use package having the structure as claimed.
Ginocchetti discloses disposable releasably coupled modular single use plaster containers (Figure 14) comprising:
at least one container containing predetermined amount of fluid (paragraph 0072, reservoir 4 for holding a fluid; paragraph 0079, multiple delivery options of the present dispenser may be used for dispensing a substance in the form of powder or gel, provided that suitable nozzles are used);
at least one nozzle with a predetermined cross area at an end of the container (paragraph 0072, each nozzle is sealed with a cap 6, 10 ); and
a cap coupled to [an] end of the nozzle configured such that the cap may be decoupled from the nozzle to dispense the predetermined cross area of plaster fluid when the container is squeezed (cap 6, 10; paragraph 0072, the cap for that nozzle can be removed by the user by grasping the dispenser by the cap and the reservoir 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the invention of Parker with single-use plaster container, as disclosed by Brennan and Ginocchetti, and each element would merely perform that same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognized providing a single use plaster container with plaster would have been predictable. One would have been motivated to provide a single use plaster container having the said structure would to enable the customer means for filling plaster into the seams of the patch/cavity with ease of handling and filling of said plaster.
Regarding claim 19, Parker, as modified by Gilbreath and Ginocchetti, teaches all the elements of claim 18 and further discloses the disposable releasably coupled modular single use plaster containers further comprise at least two containers coupled together along predetermined paths, that may be decoupled by tearing along the predetermined paths (Figures 12-14 of Ginocchetti) along predetermined paths (joints 42), that may be decoupled by tearing along the predetermined paths (paragraph 0078 of Ginocchetti). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified Parker, with the single-use container disclosed by Ginocchetti for ease of handling when not transported in a container or box together, as disclosed by Ginocchetti (paragraph 0078 of Ginocchetti).
Regarding claim 20, Parker, as modified by Gilbreath and Ginocchetti, teaches all the elements of claim 18 and further discloses the disposable releasably coupled modular single use plaster containers further comprise two opposing nozzles with different cross-sectional areas configured such that a corresponding cap may be removed to dispense the plaster to the corresponding nozzle with the corresponding cross-sectional area (cap 6, 10 in Figure 1; paragraph 0072 of Ginocchetti). Providing two opposing nozzles allows the user to select the amount of fluid discharged by the single-use container (paragraph 0072 of Ginocchetti). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have further modified Parker, with the single-use container disclosed by Ginocchetti to allow the user to select the amount of fluid discharged by the single-use container as disclosed by Ginocchetti (paragraph 0078 of Ginocchetti).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 10-13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving any 112b issues.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest:
“…wherein a distance d1 between the distal end of the centering protrusion member and the surface removing member is greater than a distance d2 between the distal end of the centering protrusion member and the surface interface plane member.” with respect to claim 4;
“…wherein the centering protrusion member is slidably insertable into a centering aperture surface interface plane member and through the body.” with respect to claim 8;
“…a surface removing member cavity configured such the surface removing member is inserted into the cavity and the surface removing member extends past the surface interface plane member when inserted; and
a centering protrusion member cavity intersecting the surface removing cavity extending along the longitudinal axis.” with respect claim 10; and
“a set of blades;
a set of centering protrusion members;
a set of fasteners configured to couple the surface removing member to the body; and,
a fastener engagement tool configured to fasten a fastener from the set of fasteners to the body.” with respect to claim 17.
The closest, prior art, Parker (US 4,121,337 A ), a textured drywall surface repair apparatus (10 in Figures 1-2; col. 3, line 63 to co. 4, line 1, sheet 22 of wallboard comprising gypsum 36…having layer of acoustic ceiling material) comprising: a centering protrusion member extending along a longitudinal axis (upper end 12 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2; col. 2, lines 53-55, incorporates at its center (axis) a reaming and centralizing element 11); a body extending along the longitudinal axis (inner portion of centralizing element 11); a surface removing member (lower end 13 of centralizing element 11 in Figures 1-2) proximally disposed to a distal end of the centering protrusion member (as shown in Figures 1-2, lower end 13 is proximally to distal end of upper end 12) configured to create a cavity with a predetermined cross-sectional area when rotated about the longitudinal axis (lower end 13 comprises blades 16 which create circular recess 27 when rotated; col. 3, lines 53-58); and, a surface interface plane member (disc 17 in Figures 1-2) disposed proximally to a distal end of the surface removing member and at least partially radially outward from the surface removing member (as shown in Figures 1-2, disc 17 is proximal to distal end of lower end 13 and radially outward therefrom) such that the cavity is limited to a predetermined depth (height of lower end 13). However, Parker fails to teach or suggest the limitations as claimed above.
Claims 11-13 would be allowable at least for depending on claim 10.
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 Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 4/28/2026
Prosecution Insights