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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F (Figures 18-22) encompassed by claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19 in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. Upon further examination, it appears that claim 13 is also directed to nonelected Figure 4. As such, claims 7, 13, 18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 14-17 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the limitation “”A fluent material roller frame, comprising:” may need to be amended to - - A fluent material roller frame, the roller frame comprising: - -.
In claim 9, line 1, the limitation “A fluent material roller spindle assembly, comprising:” may need to be amended to - - A fluent material roller spindle assembly, the roller spindle assembly comprising: - -.
Claim 11, line 4 recites the alternative conjunctive form "and/or" rather than the conventional form of "at least one of [A], [B], and [C]."
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a chuck axial locator and a bearing axial locator in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the originally filed specification (paragraph [0053]) provides the following support:
With reference now to FIG. 22, the chuck 634 may be axially retained on the bearing 638. For example, the bearing 638 also may include a chuck axial locator 678 and the chuck 634 may include a bearing axial locator 680 that engages the chuck axial locator 678 to axially locate the chuck 634 on the bearing 638. More specifically, the chuck axial locator 678 of the bearing 638 may include a wall extending radially away from the radially outer bearing surface 640 of the bearing 638, and the bearing axial locator 680 of the chuck 634 may include the axially inboard flange 663 that may locate against the corresponding wall of the chuck axial locator 678. The bearing 638 also may include a roller cover axial locator 682 that may include a radially outward portion of the wall of the chuck axial locator 678 extending radially outwardly from the chuck axial locator 678 at the axially inboard chuck end 664.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda (US 4,615,634).
As applied to claims 1 and 9, Matsuda teaches a fluent material roller frame, the roller frame comprising a handle (attached to handle connecting portion 39 but not shown in Fig. 6); a spindle assembly (31, Figs. 6 and 7); and a wire (37) having a handle portion (39) coupled to the handle (not shown), a spindle shaft on which the spindle assembly is rotatably mounted (threaded shaft portion 40 of holding member 38 on the inboard, threaded portion 45a of shaft 45 on the outboard), and an offset portion between the handle portion and the spindle shaft (Z-shaped portion of 37, Fig. 6), wherein the spindle assembly includes a bearing (horizontal portion of the inboard 38 on the right, outboard 45 on the left, Fig. 6) coupled to the spindle shaft of the wire against relative rotation therebetween and establishing a rotational axis and including a radially outer bearing surface circumscribing the rotational axis (outer surfaces of 38 and 45), a radially inner bearing surface circumscribing the rotational axis (passage 41 inside of 38 and inside the thread grooves of shaft portion 45a of 45), an axially outboard bearing end (45), and an axially inboard bearing end (38); and a chuck rotatably carried on the bearing about the rotational axis and including a radially outer chuck surface circumscribing the rotational axis (inboard chuck 42 on right, outboard chuck 43 on the left), a radially inner chuck surface circumscribing the rotational axis (inside of 42 and 43), an axially outboard chuck end (43 with flange 43b), and an axially inboard chuck end (42 with flange 42b), wherein a bearing portion of the radially inner chuck surface of the chuck is carried on a corresponding chuck portion of the radially outer bearing surface of the bearing (42 rotatable on 38 and 43 rotatable on 45, col. 5, lines 6-22).
As applied to claim 5, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein the bearing includes a throughbore (41 and 34, Fig. 6) extending between the axially inboard and outboard bearing ends (ends of 38 and 45) and establishing the radially inner bearing surface, and wherein the axially outboard bearing end (45) extends axially beyond an axial outboard spindle shaft (extends to the left of shaft portion of 31) end of the spindle shaft of the wire (37).
As applied to claim 6, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein the spindle shaft of the wire is smooth with no staked, swaged, or upset portions (smooth inside surface of 38 and 45, Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 8, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein the bearing has an axial length that is at least 50% of an axial length of the spindle shaft of the wire (the axial surfaces of bearing portions of 38 and 45 are at least 50% of an axial length of the shaft portions of 38 and 45, Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 11, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein an axial outboard bearing portion of the radially inner chuck surface (chuck 43) is carried on a corresponding axial outboard chuck portion of the radially outer bearing surface proximate the axially outboard bearing end of the bearing (outboard bearing 45) and the axially outboard chuck end of the chuck (43, Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 12, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein axial outboard and inboard bearing portions of the radially inner chuck surface (bearing portions of inboard chuck 42 and outboard chuck 43) are carried on corresponding axial outboard and inboard chuck portions of the radially outer bearing surface (of inboard bearing 38 and outboard bearing 45, Fig. 6).
As applied to claim 14, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including wherein the bearing includes a chuck axial locator (flange 44 of bearing 38, flange 45b of bearing 45, Fig. 6) and the chuck includes a bearing axial locator (surface of the core portion 42a of chuck 42 that is in contact with 44; surface of the core portion 43a of chuck 43 that is in contact with 45b, Fig. 6) that engages the chuck axial locator to axially locate the chuck on the bearing (Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lallement et al. (FR 2739307 A1, hereinafter “Lallement”).
As applied to claims 1 and 9, Lallement teaches a fluent material roller frame (abstract), the roller frame comprising a handle (4, Figs. 1 and 6); a spindle assembly (Figs. 2a-2d); and a wire (3) having a handle portion (portion of 3) coupled to the handle (4), a spindle shaft (5, Fig. 2a) on which the spindle assembly is rotatably mounted, and an offset portion between the handle portion and the spindle shaft (U-shaped portion of 3, Fig. 2a), wherein the spindle assembly includes a bearing (21, 31) coupled to the spindle shaft (5) of the wire against relative rotation therebetween (clamped, abstract) and establishing a rotational axis (axis O-O, Fig. 2a) and including a radially outer bearing surface circumscribing the rotational axis (exterior of 21 and 31), a radially inner bearing surface circumscribing the rotational axis (interior of 21 and 31), an axially outboard bearing end (end of 21 farther from bend in frame 3; end of 31 farther from bend in frame 3), and an axially inboard bearing end (end of 21 closer to bend in frame 3, end of 31 closer to bend in frame 3); and a chuck (8’ and 8” on right and left, Fig. 2a) rotatably carried on the bearing (21, 31) about the rotational axis (axis O-O) and including a radially outer chuck surface circumscribing the rotational axis (outer surface 28 of chuck 8’, outer surface 28 of chuck 8”, Fig. 2a), a radially inner chuck surface circumscribing the rotational axis (interior of 8’ and 8” in rotational contact with 21 and 31), an axially outboard chuck end (end of 8 farther from bend in frame 3, end of 8” farther from bend in frame 3), and an axially inboard chuck end (end of 8’ closer to bend in frame 3, end of 8” closer to bend in frame 3), wherein a bearing portion of the radially inner chuck surface of the chuck is carried on a corresponding chuck portion of the radially outer bearing surface of the bearing (Figs. 2a-2d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 4,615,634) in view of Smith et al. (US 20090089952A1, hereinafter “Smith”).
As applied to claims 2-4 and 10, Matsuda teaches the invention cited including a fluent material roller frame including a bearing and chuck portions located axially outboard of the vertical portion of the wire but does not explicitly teach wherein the bearing includes a retention arm extending radially outwardly and coupled to the offset portion of the wire (as in claim 2), wherein the retention arm has a base portion that projects away from the radially outer bearing surface and a clip portion that extends transversely away from the base portion in an axially inboard direction and establishes a frame wire channel in which the wire is clipped therein (as in claim 3), wherein the bearing is coupled to the wire only by the retention arm and an intermediate portion of the radially inner bearing surface between the axially outboard and inboard bearing ends (as in claim 4), and wherein the bearing includes a retention arm extending away from the radially outer bearing surface proximate the axially inboard bearing end, and the bearing and chuck portions are located axially outboard of the retention arm (as in claim 10).
Smith teaches a paint roller (10, paragraphs [0026]-[0029]) including a frame (12) with handle (14) and a spindle/roller assembly (16 (Fig. 3) with a retention arm (18) extending radially outwardly and coupled to the offset portion of the wire (12), wherein the retention arm (18) has a base portion (horizontal portion) that projects away from the radially outer bearing surface (the outer surface of 28) and a clip portion that extends transversely away from the base portion in an axially inboard direction (vertical portion) and establishes a frame wire channel in which the wire is clipped therein (Figs. 3-5), and wherein the bearing (28) is coupled to the wire only by the retention arm (18) and an intermediate portion of the radially inner bearing surface (inside of 26 in contact with outside of 28, Figs. 2-5) between the axially outboard and inboard bearing ends.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the roller frame of Matsuda with the retention arm having the claimed structure and elements, as taught by Smith, as an effective means of attaching the retention means to the spindle bearing thus, allowing the handle to be stored in lock and unlock positions depending on the user’s desire.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Martin et al. (US 7,654,001) teaches a paint roller including a wire frame with a handle supporting a plurality of bearings and a spindle assembly (abstract, Figs. 1-5)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 04/09/2026
Prosecution Insights