Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No.: 16/ 145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 8
`
`REMARKS
`
`This Amendment and Response is submitted in reply to the non—final Office Action dated
`
`October 24, 2018, in which the Examiner:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`objected to the drawings;
`
`objected to the specification;
`
`objected to claims 4—6, 9, and 10 due to informalities;
`
`interpreted the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), six
`
`paragraph;
`
`0
`
`rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite; and
`
`0
`
`rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over US. Patent No.
`
`7,921,994 to Lee et a1. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2007/0045132 to Anderson (hereinafter “Anderson”).
`
`Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s careful review of this application and respectfully
`
`addresses and traverses the objections and rejections below. The current Amendment amends
`
`claims 1—13, cancels claims 7, 11, and 14 without prejudice or disclaimer, and adds new claims
`
`15—17. No new matter is added by these amendments, and support may be found throughout the
`
`application as filed, specifically at paragraphs [0020] and [0035]—[0037], and FIGS. 6—9. Claim 1
`
`is the only independent claim.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/ 145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 8
`
`REMARKS
`
`This Amendment and Response is submitted in reply to the non—final Office Action dated
`
`October 24, 2018, in which the Examiner:
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`objected to the drawings;
`
`objected to the specification;
`
`objected to claims 4—6, 9, and 10 due to informalities;
`
`interpreted the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), six
`
`paragraph;
`
`0
`
`rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre—AIA), second
`
`paragraph, as being indefinite; and
`
`0
`
`rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over US. Patent No.
`
`7,921,994 to Lee et a1. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of US. Patent Publication No.
`
`2007/0045132 to Anderson (hereinafter “Anderson”).
`
`Applicant appreciates the Examiner’s careful review of this application and respectfully
`
`addresses and traverses the objections and rejections below. The current Amendment amends
`
`claims 1—13, cancels claims 7, 11, and 14 without prejudice or disclaimer, and adds new claims
`
`15—17. No new matter is added by these amendments, and support may be found throughout the
`
`application as filed, specifically at paragraphs [0020] and [0035]—[0037], and FIGS. 6—9. Claim 1
`
`is the only independent claim.
`
`
`
`Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No. : 16/ l 45 , l 24
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 9
`
`Objection — Drawings
`
`The Examiner objected to the drawings due to the informalities set forth on page 2 of the
`
`Office Action. In response, Applicant submits herewith the replacement figures that are in
`
`compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner Withdraw the objection to
`
`the drawings.
`
`Objection - Specification
`
`The Examiner objected to the specification because the abstract contains more than 150
`
`words. In response, Applicant has amended the abstract to include less than 150 words, as set
`
`forth herein.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the specification be
`
`Withdrawn.
`
`Objection — Claims
`
`The Examiner objected to claims 4—6, 9, and 10 due to the informalities set forth on page
`
`3 of the Office Action. In response, the claims have been amended to obviate the informalities
`
`identified by the Examiner.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner Withdraw the objection to
`
`claims 4—6, 9, and 10.
`
`
`
`Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No.: 16/ 145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 10
`
`Inter retation under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112
`
`As set forth on pages 4—7 of the Office Action, the Examiner identified the limitation
`
`“means” in connection with interpretation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre—AIA § 112, sixth
`
`paragraph.
`
`Applicant has stricken the term “means” from the claims. Accordingly, the interpretation
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre—AIA § 112, sixth paragraph does not apply to the claims.
`
`Re'ection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) due to the indefiniteness set
`
`forth on pages 7 and 8 of the Office Action. In response, Applicant has amended the claims to
`
`obviate the indefiniteness identified by the Examiner.
`
`Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner Withdraw the rejection of
`
`claims 1—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
`
`Re'ection under 35 U.S.C.
`
`103
`
`Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee in view of
`
`Anderson. A rejection under § 103 is improper unless the prior art references, alone or in
`
`combination, teach or suggest each and every claim recitation. If prior art references must be
`
`modified or combined to suggest the claim recitations, there must be a valid rationale to do so.
`
`(MPEP § 2141.)
`
`
`
`Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No.: 16/145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 11
`
`Applicant’s amended claim 1 recites, in part, “a guard comprising paired first supports
`
`and a second support, the paired supports positioned on each of opposite sides of the dividing
`
`wall around the at least one aperture and the second support attached to a wall opposite to the
`
`dividing wall.”
`
`Lee does not teach or suggest all of Applicant’s amended claim 1 recitations. For
`
`instance, Lee does not teach or suggest a guard having paired first supports and a second support
`
`with the paired supports positioned on each of opposite sides of the dividing wall around the at
`
`least one aperture and the second support attached to a wall opposite to the dividing wall.
`
`Lee discloses a package 10 that includes a container 14 and a lid 12 for retail display,
`
`sale, storage and application of multi—part coatings. (Lee, col. 1, lines 12—14.) The container has
`
`a base 18, an outer wall 16, and at least one dividing wall 20 that divide the containers into first
`
`and second chambers. (Lee, Abstract.) However, while Lee discloses the dividing wall 20,
`
`unlike the claimed invention, there is no aperture defined on the dividing wall 20. (Lee, FIGS. 2—
`
`10.)
`
`Moreover, Lee also does not disclose a guard that has paired first supports and a second
`
`support with the paired supports positioned on each of opposite sides of the dividing wall and the
`
`second support attached to a wall opposite to the dividing wall, as defined by Applicant’s
`
`amended claim 1. In fact, Lee does not disclose a support at all.
`
`Anderson does not remedy the deficiency of Lee as applied to Applicant’s amended
`
`claim 1 since Anderson also does not teach or suggest a guard having paired first supports and a
`
`second support with the paired supports positioned on each of opposite sides of the dividing wall
`
`
`
`Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No.: 16/ 145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 12
`
`around the at least one aperture and the second support attached to a wall opposite to the dividing
`
`wall.
`
`Anderson discloses a storage container for multiple paint or varnish brushes. (Anderson,
`
`FIG.1) The storage container 11 includes two dowels 13, 15 that are mounted transversely
`
`through sealing grommets 17, 19, which are arranged outside of the walls of the container 11.
`
`(Anderson, FIG.1, paragraph [0012].) Thus, Anderson fails to disclose paired supports that are
`
`positioned on each of opposite sides of the dividing wall, as defined by Applicant’s amended
`
`claim 1. In addition, Anderson also fails to disclose a second support that is attached to a wall
`
`opposite to the dividing wall, as defined by Applicant’s amended claim 1.
`
`Thus, Lee and Anderson, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest each and
`
`every recitation of Applicant’s amended claim 1. Moreover, there is no motivation or suggestion
`
`in the prior art to do so and no valid rational provided to do such a modification. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson is improper for at least these reasons, and should be
`
`withdrawn.
`
`Claims 2—14 were also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lee in view
`
`of Anderson. Claims 2—6, 8—10, 12, and 13 all depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and
`
`include additional recitations thereto. Claims 7, 11, and 14 have been canceled. Accordingly,
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 2—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
`
`unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson is improper for at least the same reasons stated above
`
`in connection with claim 1, and should be withdrawn.
`
`
`
`Inventor: Juan Cubillo
`
`Application No.: 16/ 145,124
`Docket No.: 3509-1-001NCON (2750-2 CON)
`
`Page 13
`
`New claims 15—17 directly depend from claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully
`
`submits that claims 15—17 are also unpatentable over Lee in view of Anderson.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the
`
`objections and rejections, as well as an indication of the allowability of the claims.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned attorney at the telephone number listed
`
`below if such a call would in any way facilitate advancing the prosecution of this application.
`
`The Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge any fees, which may be required, or credit
`
`any overpayment, to Deposit Account Number 08—2461.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/gie yoon/
`Gie Yoon
`
`Registration N0.: 72,417
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`HOFFMANN & BARON, LLP
`
`6900 Jericho Turnpike
`Syosset, New York 11791
`(973) 331—1700
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
We are unable to display this document.
Connectivity issues with tsdrapi.uspto.gov. Try again now (HTTP Error 429: ).
