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 .
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11, 15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers (US 2009/0250294) in view of Dzirbik et al. (US 2019/0071247).
Regarding claim 1, Byers discloses a vessel comprising:
a container 11 having a cavity and a rim/lip at 121 or 120, around an opening of the cavity, fig. 44 and 45, two sides of the container include T-studs 50 for attaching a bail handle 19, [0081] and apertures 121 for holding tools [0094];
a bracket (mount 10), fig. 44 and 45 extending from the container, the bracket comprising an arm at 31 spaced from the container, the wall that includes the bracket is considered to be the rear wall, fig. 44,
the arm having opposed first and second ends, wherein the arm is connected to the container only at its first end; and
a brace (support 33), fig. 44 and 45, connecting the first end of the arm and the container.
The rim/lip of Byers includes apertures for holding tools, fig. 44 and 45, the lip adjacent the mount/bracket or on the side opposite the mount/bracket has no additional features.
Byers discloses curved structural reinforcement flanges at 37 under the brace but not between the brace and the second end of the arm as claimed.
Dzirbik teaches a container at 100, fig. 1A that includes a rim/lip (at 116) around an opening of the container. The rim of the container of Dzirbik includes curved flanges, Figs. 1A and 1B, [0032] under the rim/lip and located on opposing end walls 102 of the container. The curved flanges are formed to provide a slotted handle 112 with an ergonomic curved exterior surface design. The slotting forms the flanges of the handle to provide a gripping surface that fits comfortably into a hand, [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rim Byers to include curved structural flanges under the rim/lip on opposing end walls (front and rear walls that have no tool apertures) of the container in order to provide an ergonomic gripping means for lifting the container as per the teaching of Dzirbik.
Adding the curved flanges of Byers as modified above results in the rim/lip of Byers being reinforced.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Byers discloses that the brace extends upwardly and outwardly from the container, fig. 44.
Regarding claims 4, 6, 21, 22, 23 Byers discloses, fig. 30, a bail 19 pivotally connected to the container; and a grip 130 disposed on a central portion of the bail;
wherein the second end of the arm comprises a protrusion 35, fig. 44.
Regarding claim 5, the references applied above teach all of claim 4, as applied above. Byers further discloses, as seen in fig. 44 and 45, that the arm has a first length between the brace and the protrusion. Fig. 2 of Byers shows that length, between the brace and the arm protrusion, while not explicitly disclosed, should fit around a wide part of a leg of a ladder; as seen in fig. 30, the grip at 130 of the bail has a length, the grip is a handle portion and assumingly is sized such that the length would correspond to the average width of an adult hand.
With this in mind, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the length of the arm between the bracket and protrusion to, at a minimum, be equal to an average hand width and to extend the length beyond an average hand width such that the bracket can be used to mount the container to a larger variety of ladders including ones with relatively wide legs with the reasonable expectation of allowing the device to be comfortably held and at the same time be attached to a variety of ladders.
The bracket arm length of Byers as modified above is equal to or greater than the grip length in order to allow the bracket arm to at least accommodate a hand and further a large variety of ladder legs, as applied above.
Regarding claim 9, Byers discloses, fig. 45, a portion of the container proximate the brace comprises a second plurality of structural reinforcement flanges at 37.
PNG
media_image1.png
334
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Byers discloses the container comprises a bottom wall connected to a front wall, a back wall, and two side walls, each of the front wall, back wall and two side walls extending upwardly from the bottom wall, fig. 44 and 45.
Byers does not disclose that the walls extend outwardly.
The examiner takes official notice that tapered walls (outwardly extending) are old and well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to have provided the walls of Byers with tapered, outwardly extending walls, in order to enable the containers to nest for compact stacking and storage as well as provide a drafting angle for manufacture.
Byers as modified above to have outwardly tapered walls results in: across-sectional dimension of a top rim of the container is greater than a cross-sectional dimension of a bottom portion of the container.
Regarding claim 15, the container of Byers is intended to hold paint. In a second embodiment, Byers further discloses that a liner can be disposed in a paint tray [0121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container 11 of Byers to include a liner in order to keep the container walls clean for the same benefit of using a liner in a tray as per the teaching of Byers.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers and Dzirbik as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kluit (US 2431808).
Regarding claim 7, the references applied above teach all of claim 4, as applied above. Byers does not teach that the grip or arm has a triangular cross-sectional shape.
Kluit teaches a handle with a triangular cross-sectional shape that provides a firm and comfortable grip and assists in leverage, col. 2: 15-35.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of and the hand hold portions of Byers, the arm and the grip of the bail handle, to have a triangular cross sectional shape in order to provide a means for a firm and comfortable grip that assists in leverage as per the teaching of Kluit.
Claim(s) 8 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers and Dzirbik as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bergman (US 2006/0243732) and Kluit (US 2431808).
Regarding claims 8 and 24-26 the references applied above teach all if claim 1, as applied above. The references applied above do not teach a plurality of ridges extending from the arm.
The container of Byers is intended to be used as a paint container [0002]. While Byers does not suggest that the bracket be used as a handle, Bergman, who also teaches a paint container at 14, fig. 3A shows both a bail handle 52 and a bracket at 18 extending from a rear of the container and being used as a handle. Furthermore, it seems natural that the mount arm of Byers, extending up and away from the container, would be used as a handle.
Kluit teaches a handle with parallel ribs (ridges), fig. 1, col. 2: 49-53 extending from the handle for the purpose of providing grip assistance. The ribs extend around the perimeter of the handle and have a curved exterior surface at vertices of the triangular shaped handle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mount arm of Byers to have a triangular shaped ribbed/ridged configuration in order to provide grip assistance and a firm and comfortable grip that assists in leverage as per the teaching of Kluit when using the mount as a handle as taught by Bergman or since the mount of Byers would naturally be used as a handle even if not intended to be used as such.
The arm of Byers extends parallel to the rim of the container, the reinforcement flanges that extend along the container of Byers as modified above are perpendicular to the rim of the container (reference fig. 1A and 1B of Dzirbik), the arm handle ribs/ridges of Byers as modified above by Kluit are oriented perpendicular to a central axis of the arm. As such, the plurality of ribs/ridges of Byers as modified above extend parallel to the first plurality of structural reinforcement flanges as recited in claim 26.
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers and Dzirbik as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bergman (US 2006/0243732).
Regarding claim 12, the references applied above teach all of claim 11, as applied above. The container of Byers is intended to be used as a paint container [0002]. Byers does not teach a plurality of ridges in an interior surface.
Bergman is analogous art in regard to paint containers and teaches an inner surface with ridges at 50, fig. 2, [0029] for removing excess paint from a paint tool.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner surface of Byers to include ridges in order to remove excess paint from a brush to avoid drips from falling off the brush as per the teaching of Bergman [0029].
Regarding claim 14, the references applied above teach all of claim 11, as applied above. The container of Byers is intended to be used as a paint container [0002]. Byers further teaches that the bracket extends from a wall of the container that may be considered to be the “back” wall. Byers does not disclose that the back wall comprises a magnet.
Bergman is analogous art in regard to paint containers and teaches a magnet 22 on a back wall for releasably holding a tool within a cavity of the container [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the container of Byers to include a magnet on the back wall in order to releasably hold a paintbrush as per the teaching of Bergman.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byers and Dzirbik as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rittmann (US 2008/0035650).
Regarding claim 13, the references applied above teach all of claim 11, as applied above. Byers further discloses the bracket extends from the back wall of the container, fig. 44 and 45.
The references applied above do not teach that the back wall comprises an underhang that is spaced from the top rim.
Rittmann is analogous art in regard to containers for holding paint, fig. 1, where a back wall, fig. 5 of the container has an underhang (ledge) 7L that is spaced from the top rim and that is configured as an inward depression on an exterior side of the back wall, fig. 2 and 3, [0048]. The underhang provides a ledge for resting the bristles of a brush above the level of paint [0048] and also provides a grabbing point for the fingers, fig. 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rear wall of the container of Byers to include an underhang in order to provide a ledge that can be used for resting the bristles of a brush above the level of paint while also providing a finger gripping surface as per the teaching of Rittmann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOLLIE L IMPINK whose telephone number is (571)270-1705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30-3:30).
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/MOLLIE IMPINK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
MOLLIE LLEWELLYN IMPINK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights