Ex Parte Blaszczak et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 8, 2017

13309590 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O.Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/309,590 12/02/2011 Gregory J. Blaszczak 288903-00633 2671 22045 7590 03/10/2017 RROOKS KTTSHMAN P C EXAMINER 1000 TOWN CENTER MANSEN, MICHAEL R TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3654 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/10/2017 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docketing @brookskushman.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GREGORY J. BLASZCZAK and PETER ARCATI Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 Technology Center 3600 Before MICHAEL L. HOELTER, LYNNE H. BROWNE, and JILL D. HILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—6 and 9—16. Appeal Br. 2. Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 have been withdrawn. See Response After Final Action dated August 4, 2014. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The disclosed subject matter “relates to [a] hose reel deck box and, more specifically, to a hose reel deck box having a one-piece manual hose guide system.” Spec. 1:5—6. Claims 1 and 9 are independent claims. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is reproduced below: 1. A hose guide for a hose reel deck box, said hose reel deck box including a housing assembly and a basket assembly, said housing assembly including a unitary housing component with a unitary sidewall defining an enclosed space, said unitary sidewall having a plurality of substantially planar members and at least one travel bar, two opposing of said planar members having a housing assembly central opening therein, said basket assembly including an elongated barrel, said barrel having an axis of rotation, said barrel rotatably disposed in said unitary sidewall enclosed space, said at least one travel bar extending generally parallel to the axis of rotation of said barrel, said hose guide comprising: a body defining a hose passage and at least one slidable coupling device second component; and said at least one slidable coupling device second component structured to be snap-fitted to said at least one travel bar. REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER Moon US 6,877,687 B2 Apr. 12,2004 English US 7,377,289 B1 May 27,2008 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL1 Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and 1 The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 distinctly claim the subject matter which the Appellants regard as the invention.2 Claims 1—6, 9, and 12—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by English. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over English. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over English and Moon. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 as being indefinite Each of dependent claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 includes the limitation, “at least one travel bar passage.” Each of these dependent claims also includes the limitation, “said at least one travel bar passage includes a first travel bar passage and a second travel bar passage.” The Examiner acknowledges, “Applicant has stated that at least one travel bar passage has a first and a second travel bar passage” but the Examiner thereafter states, “it is unclear how one passage can have two passages.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3. Appellants explain, “the claims recite ‘at least one travel bar passage’ not merely ‘one travel bar passage.’” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. As such, according to Appellants, “the phrase ‘at least one travel bar passage’ 2 The Examiner initially only identifies claims 4 and 14, but when addressing the particulars of this rejection, the Examiner further identifies claims 6 and 16 as also being indefinite. Final Act. 3^4. Appellants understand that this indefinite rejection pertains to claims 4, 6, 14, and 16. App. Br. 7. 3 Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 means that there can be one travel bar passage or more than one travel bar passage.” App. Br. 8. We agree with Appellants’ assessment that the claim phrase “at least one” means one or more than one, however, we also agree with the Examiner that, when the claimed phrase means only one passage “it is unclear how one passage can have two passages.” App. Br. 8; Final Act. 4; Ans. 3. Appellants’ explanation addresses the “instance where there are two passages” such that one skilled in the art would understand the recited “first passage” and “second passage.” App. Br. 8. However, as indicated supra, Appellants explanation does not address how such first and second passages are applicable when there is only a single travel bar passage as encompassed by the scope of the claim. In attempting to understand these dependent claims, the Examiner also addresses the “component” language found in their respective parent claims. Final Act. 4 (“Is the ‘second component’ considered to be the entire hose guide or just the upper portion of the hose guide?”). Appellants’ discussion on this topic does not help clarify the basic question asked above. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3; Ans. 2. This is because, in one instance, Appellants indicate that the “second component” is the hose guide. App. Br. 8 (“The ‘second component’ is the component that is coupled to a first component.”).3 This whole hose guide assertion, however, seems to cause 3 On the other hand, Appellants’ Reply Brief states that the claimed “second component” is at least a semi-enclosed passage. Reply Br. 2 (“The coupling device first component includes at least one travel bar with a corresponding semi-enclosed passage, which is the coupling device second component’ '' (emphasis added).). 4 Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 more questions than it answers. For example, regarding parent claim 1, if the “second component” is indeed the hose guide, then the parent claim’s recitation of a “body defining ... at least one . . . second component” is troublesome because Appellants do not indicate where the Specification describes a body having multiple second components/hose guides.4 Regardless, we need not delve into this “component” issue because we agree with the Examiner that claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are indefinite since it has not been made clear “how one passage can have two passages.” Final Act. 4. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 as being indefinite. The rejection of claims / 6, 9, and 12 16 as anticipated by English Each of independent claims 1 and 9 includes the limitation of a slidable device “structured to be snap-fitted to said at least one travel bar.” Hence, as understood, the slidable structure is to be snapped to the bar. The Examiner relies on the snap fitting between mating component halves 110 as shown in Figure 11 of English. Final Act. 5 (“Note that the two housings (110) of follower assembly (106) are snap-fitted together (see FIG. 11 below showing resilient locking tabs) over retaining bar (104).”); see also Ans. 4. Hence, the Examiner is relying on the two component halves being “snap- fitted together” and not a teaching of the assembled component being “snap- fitted to said at least one travel bar” as recited. See also App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—6. For this reason, we are not in agreement with the Examiner that English anticipates claims 1—6, 9, and 12—16. 4 “Appellants never asserted that there are two ‘second components.’” Reply Br. 3. 5 Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 Additionally, when seeking to explain, the Examiner states that the recited “body” in each of independent claims 1 and 9 corresponds to only one of English’s halves. Final Act. 5 (“comprising a body (one half housing 110 of follower assembly 106; see FIG. 11)”). Under such a correlation, the Examiner does not explain how this housing half 110/body can then be said to be “structured to be snap-fitted to said at least one travel bar” in accordance with independent claims 1 and 9.5 6 7 More specific to dependent claims 2 and 12, each of these claims recite “a unitary body.”6,7 See also App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 6. In this regard, Appellants contend, “if the Examiner is relying upon both halves of the English follower assembly to disclose the ‘snap-fit’ nature of the coupling device, then the Examiner cannot be relying upon a ‘unitary’ component.” App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 6; Final Act. 5—6; Ans. 4. In view of the above, we agree with Appellants’ assessment that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 12 as being anticipated by English cannot be sustained. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 6. 5 “This is one of the errors in the Examiner’s logic . . . the Examiner actually relies upon both halves of the English housing assembly to support the rejection of Claim 1.” App. Br. 16. 6 Appellants’ Specification states, “As used herein, the word ‘unitary’ means a component is created as a single piece or unit; that is, a component that includes pieces that are created separately and then coupled together as a unit is not a ‘unitary’ component or bodyE Spec. 6:20—22 (emphasis added); see also App. Br. 11—12. 7 Because the claim term “unitary body” arises in dependent claims 2 and 12, Appellants’ arguments regarding parent claims 1 and 9 in seeking to distinguish on the point of a “unitary body” is not persuasive. See App. Br. 16. 6 Appeal 2015-003182 Application 13/309,590 The rejection of (a) claim 10 as unpatentable over English and (b) claim 11 as unpatentable over English and Moon Claim 10 depends from independent claim 9 and, claim 11 depends from claim 10. The Examiner does not explain how English alone (claim 10), or English in combination with Moon (claim 11), cures the defect in the rejection of claim 9 discussed supra, and particularly the limitation of the slidable second component (i.e., hose guide 110) being “structured to be snap-fitted to said at least one travel bar” as recited. We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10 and 11. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 as being indefinite is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6, 9, and 12—16 as anticipated by English is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over English is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over English and Moon is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7