DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 6/12/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fastening means” in claims 1 and 5-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0172432), hereinafter SULLIVAN.
Regarding claim 1, SULLIVAN teaches: A device for applying a tape arranged at a joint between two panels (SULLIVAN teaches a taping tool (1) [0021-0023; 0025-0028; Figs. 1-3].), the device comprising at least: - a plate which extends in a longitudinal and transverse main plane (SULLIVAN teaches a plate (L-shaped bracket 4) which extends in a longitudinal and transverse main plane [Figs. 1-3; 0021; 0026].), the plate comprising at least one scraping member (SULLIVAN teaches the plate (L-shaped bracket 4) comprising at least one scraping member (3) [Figs. 1-3; 0026].), - the scraping member comprising at least one blade which extends in a plane intersecting the main plane of the plate (SULLIVAN teaches the scraping member comprises the blade (3) extending a plane intersecting the main plane of the plate (4) [Figs. 1-3].), - a roller rigidly connected to the plate via fastening means that allow the roller to rotate about a transverse rotation axis (SULLIVAN teaches a roller (2) rigidly connected to the plate (4) via fastening means that allow the roller to rotate about a transverse rotation axis [Figs. 1-3; 0025].), the roller and the scraping member extending from the same side of the plate (SULLIVAN teaches the roller (2) and the scraping member extending from the same side of the plate [Figs. 1-3].), the roller having a shape of two right circular cones whose bases are wholly in contact with each other (SULLIVAN teaches the roller preferably is long with a diameter of 2 1/8” at each end of the roller, and a gradual, increasing diameter towards the middle of the roller to 2 ¼” at its center [0022; Fig. 3].), the device comprising at least one abutment member which extends from the plate towards the blade of the scraping member (SULLIVAN teaches at least one stop member (9) which extends from the plate (4) towards the blade (3) [Figs. 1-3; 0027].).
Regarding claim 2, SULLIVAN teaches: wherein the roller comprises a linear contact zone for bearing at least against the tape (SULLIVAN teaches the roller (2) comprises a linear contact zone for bearing at least against the tape [0024; Fig. 2].), and the blade of the scraping member comprises a transverse end edge, opposite a plate fastening edge, intended for bearing at least against the tape (SULLIVAN teaches the blade (3) comprises a transverse end edge for bearing at least against the tape (7) and is opposite a plate fastening edge [Figs. 1-3; 0027].), the linear contact zone and the transverse end edge extending at least in part in a common longitudinal and transverse plane (SULLIVAN teaches the linear contact zone and the transverse end edge extend at least in part in a common longitudinal and transverse plane [Figs. 1-3; 0026].).
Regarding claim 4, SULLIVAN teaches: wherein a transverse end edge of the blade of the scraping member extends along a first transverse dimension and the roller extends along a second transverse dimension, the first transverse dimension being greater than the second transverse dimension (SULLIVAN teaches a transverse end edge of the blade (3) of the scraping member extends along a first transverse dimension and the roller (2) extends along a second transverse dimension. SULLIVAN shows the first transverse dimension being greater than the second transverse dimension [Figs. 1-3; 0026].).
Regarding claim 5, SULLIVAN teaches: wherein the at least one abutment member comprises a fastening means for fastening to the plate allowing vertical displacement of said abutment member and holding said abutment member in position (SULLIVAN teaches the slotted openings (9) receives securing mechanisms, such as bolts, screws and nuts, to secure the base of the blade and easily remove a damaged blade (3) [0027].).
Regarding claim 6, SULLIVAN teaches: wherein at least the fastening edge of the blade is resiliently deformable (SULLIVAN teaches a taper can easily change the blade (3) [0027].).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (U.S. PGPUB 2005/0172432), hereinafter SULLIVAN, in view of Burk (U.S. PGPUB 2020/0190835), hereinafter BURK.
Regarding claim 3, SULLIVAN teaches all of the claimed limitation as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the scraping member comprises two wings which extend on either side of the blade, from its transverse end edge and such that the wings extend in a plane intersecting the main plane of the plate and the plane of the blade of the scraping member, and in a direction of the roller. In the same field of endeavor, tape, BURK teaches a scraping member that comprises two wings (25, 26) which extend on either side of the blade, from its transverse end edge and such that the wings extend in a plane intersecting the main plane of the plate (8) and the plane of the blade (12) of the scraping member [0039; Figs. 5, 14]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify SULLIVAN, by having the two wings extending on either side of the blade, as suggested by BURK, in order to impart the desired angle [0041].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
