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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 1 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 1.
Claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027 recites a cosmetic container, comprising: a scraping member including a joining section and an applying section integrally formed with the joining section wherein the joining section has a joining element, a connecting element, and an intermediate element; the connecting element is disposed between the joining element and the intermediate element; the applying section has an applying element and a fluffy bristles planted element; the applying element is broad, flat and formed with the intermediate element; thickness of the connecting element is greater than that of the applying element; thickness of the intermediate element is gradually decreased from the connecting element toward the applying element; the fluffy bristles planted element is disposed at an end of the applying element and distal the intermediate element; and the fluffy bristles planted element has a plurality of fluffy bristles; a cap includes an internally threaded section on an inner surface and a positioning seat on a bottom wherein the joining element of the scraping member is secured to the positioning seat; and a containing member including an axially oriented opening and an externally threaded section formed around the axially oriented opening, the externally threaded section being configured to threadedly secure to the internally threaded section of the cap so as to dispose the cap on the containing member. Furthermore, see annotated Fig. 4 of Application No. 19/012,027 depicting an axial line along the lengthwise direction of the scraping member; a first half at one side of the axial line, a second half at the other side of the axial line, and a plurality of
PNG
media_image1.png
541
683
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fluffy bristles being disposed of at least one of the first half and the second half.
Therefore, claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 1. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 2 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 2.
Claim 2 of Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the applying element includes a concave surface on a first side and a straight surface on a second side opposing the first side; width of the connecting element is equal to that of the intermediate element; either the width of the connecting element or the width of the intermediate element is greater than width of the applying element; and the width of the applying element is gradually decreased from the intermediate element toward the fluffy bristles planted element.
Therefore, claim 2 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 2. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 3 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 3.
Claim 3 of Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the applying element includes a straight surface on either side, and the width of the connecting element is equal to the width of the intermediate element and the width of the applying element.
Therefore, claim 3 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 3. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 5 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 4.
Claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the connecting element is broad, flat. Therefore, claim 4 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 5. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 6 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 5.
Claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the connecting element is cylindrical, the width of the connecting element is less than that of the applying element, and the width of the intermediate element is gradually increased from the connecting element toward the applying element. Therefore, claim 5 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 6. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 7 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 7 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 6.
Claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, further comprising a plug disposed in the axially oriented opening; the plug including a flange on an end, the flange being attached to the axially oriented opening, and an axial channel; and both the applying element of the scraping member and the fluffy bristles planted element of the scraping member pass through the axial channel of the plug to dispose in the containing member. Therefore, claim 6 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 7. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 7 or 8 of copending Application No. 19/012,027. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because application claim 8 is anticipated by Application No. 19/012,027 claim 7.
Claim 7 of copending Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the scraping member is formed of plastic. Therefore, claim 7 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 8. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 8 of copending Application No. 19/012,027 recites the cosmetic container of claim 1 of Application No. 19/012,027, wherein the scraping member is formed of metal. Therefore, claim 8 of Application No. 19/012,027 is in essence a “species” of the generic invention of application claim 8. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: “…of the scraping member of the scraping member…” should read “…of the scraping member [[of the scraping member]] …”. Furthermore, claim 7 recites the limitation: “both” in line 3, however, the limitation is only referring to a singular element thus, does not require the plurality determiner, “both”. 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.
Claim 3, 5 and 7 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 side" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For continued examination, the examiner interprets “the side” as referring to “a side”. Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, it is unclear if “the side” is the same or different from the “one side of the axial line” or “the other side of the axial line” recited in claim 1.
The term "broad" in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "broad" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skills in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term "broad" does not clearly specify the exact distance between the opposing sides of the connecting element thus does not define the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the applying element" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For continued examination, the examiner interprets “the applying element” as referring to “an applying section” defined in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 4, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170127802 A1) (hereafter, “Chen”) in view of Wightman (US 20140147189 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a cosmetic container (Figs. 8), comprising: a scraping member having an axial line along its lengthwise direction (see annotated Fig. 9), the scraping member comprising a joining section and an applying section, the joining section and the applying section being formed integrally (see annotated Fig. 9), the joining section including a joining element (40; see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 9), a connecting element, and an intermediate element, the connecting element being between the joining element and the intermediate element (see annotated Fig. 9; see that the segment interpreted as the connecting element is disposed between the joining element and the intermediate element), the applying section being formed with the intermediate element (see annotated Fig. 9; see that the annotated applying section is being formed with the intermediate element), thickness of the connecting element being greater than that of the applying section, thickness of the intermediate element being gradually decreased from the connecting element toward the applying section (see annotated Fig. 9), the applying section including a first half at one side of the axial line and a second half at the other side of the axial line (see annotated Fig. 9), and a plurality of fluffy bristles (42 Fig. 8) being disposed on at least one of the first half and the second half (see annotated Fig. 9; [0064]: element 42 is a soft means or a bristled element or a spongy element), a cap (3 Fig. 9) includes a positioning seat (see annotated Fig. 9) on a bottom wherein the joining element (40; see Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 9) of the scraping member is secured to the positioning seat (see annotated Fig. 9; the base space at the end opposite the orifice of element 3 through which element 40 is introduced, defined by the interior side walls as annotated in Fig. 9); and a containing member (elements 2 and 20/21/21a/21b Figs. 3 and 8) including an axially oriented opening (see Fig. 3 and [0040]) and an externally threaded section formed around the axially oriented opening ([0047]: the top (21a) of the containing member has threading placed on the outer surface at the open end), the externally threaded section being configured to threadedly secure to the internally threaded section of the cap so as to dispose the cap on the containing member ([0044]: element 21a may be adapted to be housed within element 3 which is the cap; [0063]: elements 3 and 2 are mutually coupled, i.e. in close configuration. It is the examiner’s interpretation that for element 3 to effectively engage with element 21a of element 2, which has threading on its outer surface, element 3 would have an internal thread to form that mutual coupling).
PNG
media_image2.png
879
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chen does not teach the applying section being flat and the cap includes an internally threaded section on an inner surface.
Wightman teaches an analogous device comprising a scraping member (see Figs. 1-7) including an applying section (see annotated Figs 7A-C), a cap (102/104 Fig. 3) and a containing member (106 Fig. 3). Wightman further teaches the applying section being flat (see Figs. 7A-C and annotated Figs. 7A-C) and a cap (102/104 Fig. 3) includes an internally threaded (114 Fig. 2) section on an inner surface (see Fig. 2; [0032]: the handle (inner cap) 104 comprises an inner cap threaded portion 114 which is internally threaded and dimensioned for cooperated threaded engagement with the container threaded portion 116. The limitation as stated is functional thus, while Wightman does not have to teach the device functioning as claimed, it clearly demonstrates that the device of Wightman is capable of
PNG
media_image3.png
542
655
media_image3.png
Greyscale
functioning as claimed, therefore satisfies the claimed limitation)
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 device of Chen to be configured with an applying section that is flat and a cap that includes an internally threaded section on an inner surface, as taught by Wightman, in order to create an applying section that can easily be inserted and removed from the container during use, and a cap that has an functionally equivalent fastening means to the cap disclosed by Chen, in this case, an internally thread section.
Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth on claim 1. Chen further teaches the cosmetic container of claim 1, further comprising the plurality of fluffy bristles disposed on the first half and the second half (see annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image4.png
879
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth on claim 1. Chen et al. further discloses that the connecting element is broad (see that the connecting element (annotated Fig. 9) is broad (a distance (d) defined between the first side and the second side, and said distance significant enough to fit examiner’s reasonable interpretation of the term “broad” with a circular perpendicular section or also a not circular section; [0063]).
PNG
media_image5.png
936
863
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen et al. is silent regarding claim 5 wherein the connecting element is flat.
PNG
media_image6.png
554
713
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Wightman further teaches an analogous device wherein the connecting element is flat (see annotated Figs. 7A-C, see that the connecting element is flat with a side that is observably bigger than another adjacent side).
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 device of Chen/Wightman to be configured such that the connecting element is flat, as suggested by Wightman, in order to create a connecting element that can easily be inserted and removed from the orifice of the container during use.
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth on claim 1. Chen et al. further teaches the cosmetic container of claim 1, further a comprising a plug (50 Figs. 10, 11, and 13) disposed in the axially oriented opening (see Figs. 8, 11and 13); the plug (50 Figs. 10 and 11) including a flange (50a Figs. 10 and 13; [0090]) on an end (Figs. 10 and 13; see that element 50a is localized on an end), the flange being attached to the axially oriented opening (Figs. 10 and 13; see that element 50a is attached to distal axially oriented opening), and an axial channel (see that element 50 has an axial channel (a through passage or opening) as better illustrated in Fig. 13); and [[both]] the applying element of the scraping member [[of the scraping member]] pass through the axial channel of the plug to dispose in the containing member (elements 2 and 20/21/21a/21b Fig. 8; see Fig. 8 ).
PNG
media_image7.png
907
819
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170127802 A1) (hereafter, “Chen”) in view of Wightman (US 20140147189 A1) and further in view of Higgins (US 0624934 A).
Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Chen further teaches the cosmetic container of claim 1, wherein the first half has a straight surface on a side (see annotated Fig. 9), width of the connecting element is equal to that of the intermediate element (see annotated Fig. 9), and each of the width of the connecting element and the width of the intermediate element are greater than width of the applying section (see annotated Fig. 9).
Chen does not teach that the second half has a concave surface on a side.
PNG
media_image8.png
491
700
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Higgins teaches an analogous device comprising a scraping member (see annotated Fig. 4) including an axial line along the lengthwise direction of the scraping member; an applying section (elements C and K, Fig. 4), the applying section including a first half at one side of the axial line and a second half at the other side of the axial line (see annotated Fig. 4); a cap (a Figs. 1 – 4); and a containing member (see annotated Fig. 4). Higgins further teaches that the second half has a concave surface on a side (see annotated Fig. 4) and the first half has a straight surface on a side.
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 device of Chen/Wightman to be configured such that the second half of the applying section has a concave surface on a side, as taught by Higgins, in order to create a scraping member with an applying member configured with a concave surface that allows for the effective uptake of a composition/product (including appropriate cosmetic materials) from the container during use.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170127802 A1) (hereafter, “Chen”) in view of Wightman (US 20140147189 A1) and further in view of Chan (US 20180220771 A1).
Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Chen further teaches that each of the first half and the second half have a straight surface on the side (see annotated Fig. 9), and width of the connecting element is equal to that of the intermediate element (see annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image9.png
936
863
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Chen does not teach that the width of the connecting element is equal to that of the applying section.
PNG
media_image10.png
657
639
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Chan teaches an analogous device comprising a scraping member (see Fig. 2) including an applying section (20/21 Fig. 2); a cap (30 Figs. 2) and a containing member (10 Fig. 2). Chan further teaches the width of the connecting element equal to the width of the applying section (see annotated Fig. 3; see that the width of the connecting element is equal to of the applying section).
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 device of Chen/Wightman to be configured such that the width of the connecting element is equal to the width of the applying section, as taught by Chan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a scrapping device with width of the applicator bar or rod such that it can effectively engage the orifice of the container thus, preventing cosmetic liquid inside from flowing out, as suggested by Chan, and to offer a degree of rigidity to the applicator bar or rod during use. Furthermore, the widths of the connecting, intermediate and applicator elements can be a subject of design preference and aesthetics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170127802 A1) (hereafter, “Chen”) in view of Wightman (US 20140147189 A1) and further in view of Gueret (ES 2341002 T3).
Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Chen further teaches that the connecting element is cylindrical ([0063]; the rod 41 has preferably a circular perpendicular section. See Fig. 9; said element 41 extends upwards to the cap (3) the with the proximal portion before the cap forming parts of the connecting element which also would have a circular perpendicular section). The combination of Chen and Wightman is silent regarding claim 6, wherein the width of the connecting element is less than that of the applying section, and the width of the intermediate element is gradually increased from the connecting element toward the applying element.
Gueret teaches an analogous device (Fig. 1) comprising a scraping member (3 Fig. 1) including an applying section (elements 4/5/6 Fig. 1); a cap (9 Figs. 1); and a containing member (2 Fig. 1). Gueret further teaches the width of the connecting element is less than that of the applying section (see annotated Fig. 6), and the width of the intermediate element is gradually increased from the connecting element toward the applying section (12 Fig. 6) (see annotated Fig. 6; see that the width of the intermediate element increases from the connecting element toward the applying section).
PNG
media_image11.png
247
489
media_image11.png
Greyscale
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 device of Chen/Wightman to be configured such that the width of the connecting element is less than that of the applying section, and the width of the intermediate element is gradually increased from the connecting element toward the applying section, as taught by Gueret, in order to create a flexible zone (the connecting element with smaller width compared to the applying section) which helps to give precision to the applicator.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20170127802 A1) (hereafter, “Chen”) in view of Wightman (US 20140147189 A1) and further in view of Robles (US 20230363515 A1).
Chen as modified by Wightman discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. The combination of Chen and Wightman does not teach that the scraping member is made of plastic or metal.
Robles teaches an analogous device comprising a scraping member (10 Fig. 1) including an applying section (elements 86/90/92 Fig. 1); a cap (12/50 Figs. 1) and a containing member (110 Fig. 3). Robles further teaches an analogous device wherein the scraping member is made of plastic or metal ([0015], claim(s) 2 & 12: the MFAA (element 10) can be made of various material, with plastic, and injection molded or 3-D painted plastic preferred; [0042], claim(s) 2 and 12: Both design configurations of the element 10 can be made of various materials, including metal).
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 scrapping member of the device disclosed by Chen/Wightman be configured to be made of plastic or metal, as taught by Robles, in order to create a scrapping member that is durable, long-lasting, and is cost effective from both a manufacturer’s and consumer’s point of view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571)270-7855. 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.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
