DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The Examiner notes that this 2nd Non-Final Office Action is being issued to further clarify the record.
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 12/27/2025.
The Examiner notes claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined; all claims are original or previously presented. Please see the Response to Amendments and Response to Arguments sections below for more details.
Claim Interpretation
The term “approximately circular” that appears in claims 3 & 9 is interpreted as the jaws form a circular opening but the jaws can be opened or closed more to increase or reduce, respectively, the size of the opening between the jaws. As the opening or closing changes in size it will not be perfectly circular but will be close to circular.
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.
And/or
(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) 1-3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KIM DONG-SIK (KR 20170000141 U), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 1. Kim discloses a tool [Fig 1] comprising:
a first member having a first handle portion and a first curved jaw portion [Fig 1; of the two 10s & 30s the one on top of the other is first member the handle portion has 20 attached to it and the semicircular end is the first curved jaw portion], the first curved jaw portion having a first curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with a paint roller cover [Fig 1-5; the jaw portion of 10 & 30 (including 11 and 16) is sized to fit around a roller as it is round and would engage the nap of a paint roller];
a second member having a second handle portion and a second curved jaw portion, the second curved jaw portion having a second curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with the paint roller cover [Fig 1-5; the other 10 & 30 is identical to the first one with similar structure]; and
a fastener that passes through a first hole in the first member and a second hole in the second member to pivotably secure the first member and the second member together [Figure 1 of this action and Fig 1-4b; the fastener allows for the two members to pivot relative to each other],
wherein when the first member and second member are pivoted relative to each other, the first jaw portion and the second jaw portion can come together to form a scraper opening that can accommodate a paint roller [Fig 1-5; the tool jaw of 10 & 30 when closed form a scraper that can accommodate a paint roller].
PNG
media_image1.png
489
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
Regarding claim 2. Kim discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the first member and the second member are flat [Fig 1; both the first and second member have flat surfaces; The Examiner notes that the extent to which the members are flat is not in the limitation].
Regarding claim 3. Kim discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the first member and the second member define an S-shaped curve that allows for a size of the scraper opening to vary while remaining approximately circular [Figure 2 of this action; the first and second member define S-shaped curves and can open vary the size of the opening which is approximately circular by moving the handle portions, Fig 4a-4b show different opening sizes that are approximately circular as shown by the dashed lines in the figures].
PNG
media_image2.png
338
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2
Claim(s) 1-3 & 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RENNSTEIG WERKZEUGE (DE 202009005641 U1), hereinafter Rennsteig.
Regarding claim 1. Rennsteig discloses a tool [Fig 1-2] comprising:
a first member having a first handle portion and a first curved jaw portion [Fig 1; ¶28 of the translation; there are two members with a handle portion (1) and a curved jaw portion (2); it is noted that the handle can be in the same plane as the plane of the jaws (see ¶28 of the translation)], the first curved jaw portion having a first curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with a paint roller cover [Fig 1; each curved jaw portion has a curved edge at 6 forming a curved scraping area as it can be scrapped along a circular object];
a second member having a second handle portion and a second curved jaw portion, the second curved jaw portion having a second curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with the paint roller cover [Fig 1; the two members are identical]; and
a fastener that passes through a first hole in the first member and a second hole in the second member to pivotably secure the first member and the second member together [Fig 1-2; ¶22 of the translation; 3 is a fastener extending through holes in the first and second member],
wherein when the first member and second member are pivoted relative to each other, the first jaw portion and the second jaw portion can come together to form a scraper opening that can accommodate a paint roller [Fig 1; the opening (5) formed by the first and second jaw portions can accommodate a paint roller as the scale of the tool and the theoretical paint roller are not definitively known].
Regarding claim 2. Rennsteig discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the first member and the second member are flat [Fig 1-2; ¶28 of the translation; both the first and second member have flat surfaces; The Examiner notes that the extent to which the members are flat is not in the limitation].
Regarding claim 3. Rennsteig discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the first member and the second member define an S-shaped curve that allows for a size of the scraper opening to vary while remaining approximately circular [Fig 1-2; both members have an S-shape extending from the curved jaw portion to the handle portion; while not claimed specifically each jaw portion has an S-shape extending from the curved scraping around the curved end of the curved jaw portion].
Regarding claim 5. Rennsteig discloses the tool of claim 1, wherein the first member and the second member are identical [Fig 1-2; ¶28 of the translation; both the first and second members are identical].
Regarding claim 6. Kim discloses the tool of claim 1, further comprising a diameter limiting system that prevents the tool from closing beyond a predetermined level [Fig 1-2; the extending parts that 7 connects to on each handle is a diameter limiting system that prevents the tool from closing beyond a predetermined level].
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trincilla et al. (US 20050138750), hereinafter Trincilla.
Regarding claim 8. Trincilla discloses a method of cleaning a paint roller cover comprising:
opening a paint roller cover squeegee tool [16] into an open configuration [Fig 3; ¶27; the paint roller cover squeegee (16) can open to surround the cover],
wherein the tool has a first member and a second member, the first member and the second member each having a handle portion and a curved jaw portion [Fig 3; there are first and second members with handle portions (18a & 18b, respectively) and curved jaw portions (40a & 40b, respectively), the curved jaw portion having a curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with a paint roller cover [Fig 4b-4c; ¶27; each jaw portion is sized and shaped to engage a paint roller cover],
wherein when the first member and second member are pivoted relative to each other into an open configuration, the ends of the first jaw portion and the second jaw portion can be separated [Fig 3];
placing the jaw portions around a paint roller cover [Fig 4b-4c; ¶27];
bringing the handle portions together to close the jaw portions around the paint roller cover in a closed configuration [Fig 4b-4c; ¶27];
pushing the tool in a direction parallel to the central axis of the paint roller cover [Fig 4c]; and
removing the paint from the paint roller cover [Fig 4c; ¶27].
Regarding claim 9. Trincilla discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising adjusting a diameter limiting system to limit the diameter of a scraper opening to approximately match the diameter of the paint roller cover [Fig 1 & 3; ¶21 & ¶26; the pliers have a ratcheting or diameter limiting system that can limit the diameter of the opening to approximately match the diameter of the paint roller].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennsteig in view of Ashur (US 20130327348), hereinafter Ashur.
Regarding claim 4. Rennsteig discloses the tool of claim 1, but is silent in regards to wherein the first member and the second member have a bulb at the end of the jaws where the jaws overlap when they are in a closed configuration.
However Ashur teaches a tool with jaws that slide past each other, wherein the first member and the second member have a bulb at the end of the jaws where the jaws overlap when they are in a closed configuration [Fig 5; both jaws (212a & 212b) have bulbs at the end (213a & 213b) that overlap when the jaws are closed].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jaws as disclosed by Rennsteig to have the first member and the second member have a bulb at the end of the jaws where the jaws overlap when they are in a closed configuration as taught by Ashur for the purpose of reducing the sharp edges of the jaws for increased user safety [Ashur: ¶47].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rennsteig in view of LI, HONG-XING (CN 219967641 U), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 7. Rennsteig as modified teaches the tool of claim 6, but may not explicitly disclose wherein the diameter limiting system includes an adjustment screw and a peg, wherein the adjustment screw and the peg have axis that are in planes that are 90 degrees from each other.
However Li teaches a tool with closing jaw members further comprising a diameter limiting system that prevents the tool from closing beyond a predetermined level [Fig 1-3; Pg4:¶2-¶4 of the translation; 12-16 form a diameter limiting system that can prevent the tool from closing more than would be desired by the user; this would be accomplished by moving the nut between the two handles and adjusting it]wherein the diameter limiting system includes an adjustment screw [13] and a peg [12], wherein the adjustment screw and the peg have axis that are in planes that are 90 degrees from each other [Fig 1-3].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the diameter limiting system as disclosed by Rennsteig to have the diameter limiting system includes an adjustment screw and a peg, wherein the adjustment screw and the peg have axis that are in planes that are 90 degrees from each other as taught by Li for the purpose of changing and locking the size of the opening [Li: Pg4:¶2-¶4].
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks Pages 1-14, filed 12/27/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The Applicant claims that Kim does not teach or suggest that the jaw portions have a curved scraping area sized and shaped to engage with a paint roller cover.However Kim does teach a curved scraping area at 10 and while the blade (11) and retractable portion (16) extend into the circular opening the curved scraping area which 10 and 16 are a part would engage the nap of a paint roller cover thereby fulfilling the limitations requirement. Even if 11 and 16 contacted the inner roll of a paint roller cover the nap extending out from the inner roll would contact the curved portion of 10 and can be scraped. Since how affective the scraping is not a requirement, any amount of scraping meets the limitation.
The Applicant claims that Kim’s first and second members are not flat.However as stated above in the rejection, what is specifically flat about the members is not specifically claimed. For example, the outer surface connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the Applicant’s first and second members is flat. Therefore as long as the first and second members of a prior art has flat sides that do not have a curved bevel or chamfer it would meet the limitation. It is noted that all of Kim’s surfaces in plane with the circular opening or the surfaces perpendicular to the circular opening plane are flat.
The Applicant claims that Kim does not teach or suggest an S-shaped curve. The Applicant submits the following figure to support this claim.
PNG
media_image3.png
480
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However the claim states the “wherein the first member and the second member define an S-shaped curve that allows for a size of the scraper opening to vary while remaining approximately circular.” Since the claim states that the first and second member define the S-shaped curve then any part of the first and second member can define that shape as the first and second member are moveable to vary the opening. See Figure 2 of this action, see above, shows S-shaped curves defined by the first and second members. If the Applicant wanted the jaw portion to define the curve then the claim should be amended.
The Applicant claims that Kim does not teach or suggest the scraper opening can vary in size while remaining approximately circular.However claim 1 states “…the first jaw portion and the second jaw portion can come together to form a scraper opening that can accommodate a paint roller.” The scraper opening is not required by any of the claims to have the first and second jaw portions overlap to create a substantially circular opening. Therefore the scraper opening can have a gap between the first and second jaw portion while still being approximately circular.
The arguments regarding Kim’s rejection of claim 5 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection of claim 5.
The arguments regarding the Brevet (FR 2861332 A1) rejection of claim 8-9 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection of claim 8-9.
The arguments regarding Kim’s rejection of claim 4 & 6 are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection of claim .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R MCCONNELL whose telephone number is (303)297-4608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 0700-1600 MST [0900-1800 EST] 2nd Friday 0700-1500 MST [0900-1700 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, 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.
/AARON R MCCONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723