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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, and 20-23 are pending, claims 4, 10, and 19 are cancelled, claims 13-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 012/29/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurippini (FR3030202).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurippini FR3030202 in view of Greer (U.S. 8,313,011)
Regarding claim 1, Eurippini discloses a spray actuator comprising:
a single component actuator body (which is a single body comprising both 22 and 34 together) top (item 22) and a shroud (item 34), the shroud including a bottom perimeter and a central passageway (item 38) having an inlet opening (opening of 38);
an expansion chamber (item 26) located in the central passageway opposite the inlet opening and being a choke point of fluid flowing from the central passageway (as fluid flows from 38 into 26);
an expansion chamber outlet opening (transition from 26 to passage leading to 40) that is oriented perpendicular to the central passageway inlet opening; and
a mouth (item 36 which is the housing of elongated opening 42) formed within the actuator body (being within the body of 22 and 34) having a mouth inlet (item 40) and a slotted outlet (item 42) in a first direction (the direction from the mouth to the inlet) and a passage therebetween (the noted passage shown in figure 4, where the floor is level and the sidewalls angle) the passage having a first side wall (the floor) and a second side wall (the ceiling, not shown in figure 4, but also understood as being the same i.e. flat) wherein the distance between the side wall and the second side wall remains constant along the passage (as the noted distance between the noted floor and ceiling is constant along the passage between the noted sidewalls that are angled; its noted only the sidewalls are disclosed and shown in figure 4 tapering, where the top/bottom walls are not), wherein the mouth cross sectional area tapers outwardly from the mouth inlet to the slotted outlet (see figure 2, as 42 is increased in size from 40 in the cut view shown in figure 4, specifically noting that 50 is angled while 46 is flat, understood that the floor/ceiling are constant and the side walls angle out), wherein the expansion chamber outlet opening opens into the mouth inlet and wherein the expansion chamber outlet opening has a cross-sectional area that is smaller than the cross sectional area of the slotted outlet (size of 42 is shown to be larger in both the side view of figure 2 and the top figure of figure 3 than the juncture of 26 to the horizontal path). Eurippini fails to disclose the expansion chamber outlet opening area from the central passageway into the expansion chamber is larger than each of the cross-sectional areas of the inlet opening and a can valve opening to form the choke point.
Greer, figures 18 and 20, discloses having the expansion chamber outlet opening area from the central passageway into the expansion chamber (being the area going into what is 130 in figure 20) being larger than each of the cross sectional areas of the inlet opening (being the inlet opening at 156) and the can valve opening (being that at the bottom of 146 adjacent 154), as increasing such nozzle passageway increases the particles size of the spray droplets diameter (column 12 rows 7-24). See also figures 3-8, where increasing that area within the nozzle itself increase the particle size of the spray pattern as desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the expansion chamber outlet opening area from the central passageway into the expansion chamber is larger than each of the cross-sectional areas of the inlet opening and a can valve opening to form the choke point as disclosed by Greer into the system of Eurippini, as doing so would allow for larger particles in the spray pattern.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, though Eurippini clearly discloses a substantially larger sized slotted outlet, the size is not explicitly disclosed, thus that 50% and 80% required levels by claims 2 and 3 are not anticipated. However, visually the Examiner would like to note it appears that the cross-sectional area appears to be at least 90% smaller.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to change the size of the outlet versus the flow paths therein, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is the severity of the venturi flow path which achieves the recognized result of a pressure drop/atomization, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The Examiner notes that Applicant lacks criticality for the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Eurippini discloses wherein the mouth has a top wall and a bottom wall and the mouth taper is an angle (a) of from 10° to 90° between the mouth top wall and the mouth bottom wall (page 4, lines 35-36, “alpha…advantageously greater than 10 degrees”).
Regarding claim 6, Eurippini discloses wherein the mouth inlet includes a throat (passageway between 40 and 26 juncture/outlet) located between the expansion chamber outlet opening and the mouth inlet.
Regarding claim 7, Eurippini discloses wherein the throat has a constant cross-sectional area (see figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 8, Eurippini as modified discloses the inlet opening (being the inlet opening at 38) is sized large enough to allow fluid to flow freely into the expansion chamber (26) without choking the fluid flow (as understood the shift from 38 to 26 shown in figure 2 of a larger diameter into a smaller flow diameter, is understood comparable to applicants 16 into 20, where in Eurippini the noted stem 18 engages within 38 for the flow, and thus the shift from fluid within 18 into 26 would not cause a choke). The examiner notes, fluid is not flowing in the larger diameter of 38, rather that larger diameter receives 18 therein, which then provides fluid into 26
Regarding claim 9, Eurippini as modified discloses the expansion chamber outlet opening choke point is the only actuator choke point (as shown in figure 1 of Eurippini, being the only “choke” point shown in the figure, being the only shown narrowing of the fluid flow in the system).
Regarding claim 11, Eurippini disclose wherein the mouth has a first side wall (top side) and
a second side wall (bottom side) wherein the distance between the first side wall and second side wall is constant in the mouth (see figure 1 for the top and figure 4 for the bottom).
Regarding claim 12, Eurippini further discloses wherein the spray actuator is associated with a can (16) having an internal valve (valve for 18) and hollow stem (item 18) such that the hollow stem is occupies a portion of the actuator central passageway (capable of, the Examiner notes these added components are not positively recited since they are not part of the spray actuator).
Regarding claim 16, in further lieu of the rejection of claim 1, Eurippini further discloses a spray can (item 12) comprising a spray can (item 16) containing a pressurized fluid and having an internal valve (item 18) including a hollow stem having an opening (valve 18 contains an exit stem which opens).
Regarding claim 17, Eurippini further discloses wherein in use, a fluid stream is formed having a width of up to 1 inch and a height of up to 6 to 8 inches when measured from about 3 to 10 inches from the actuator mouth outlet (system is capable of spraying this output when held in a particular way and filled with appropriate dispensing material, in a sense, the claim is regarding to the functional capability of the system and must be claimed as a method to get full patentable weight).
Regarding claim 18, Eurippini further discloses wherein the fluid exits the actuator at a rate of at least 18 ounces per minute (system is capable of spraying this output when filled with appropriate dispensing material, in a sense, the claim is regarding to the functional capability of the system and must be claimed as a method to get full patentable weight).
Regarding claim 20, Eurippini further discloses wherein the pressurized fluid is paint (makeup is a type of paint, further capable of).
Regarding claim 23, Eurippini discloses the first direction (being the height) is a height direction and wherein a second direction is a width (the changing width).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurippini and Greer and further in view of Sanwald (U.S. 2016/0228884).
With respect to claim 22, Eurippini discloses the spray actuator, but fails to disclose the spray actuator is an injection molded thermoplastic polymer.
Sanwald, paragraph 0011 and 0015, discloses a thermoplastic polymer being made via injection molding, allowing for the two-component nozzle to be made in one process step and using a material of lower material cost.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method and material as disclosed by Sanwald into the system of Eurippini, allowing their nozzle to be made in one process step and using a material of lower material cost. Furthermore, it has been held top e within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. Also, whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug 333, F2d 905, 142 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1964).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (12/29/2025) has been entered. Currently claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, and 20-23 are pending, claims 4, 10, and 19 are cancelled, claims 13-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 8, 9, and 16 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (07/08/2024). Applicant’s arguments, see Applications Arguments, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Eurippini in view of Greer. Applicant argues that Eurippini fails to disclose the choke point of fluid flowing from the central passageway, examiner respectfully disagrees. Eurippini discloses the same expansion chamber which then has perpendicular to it another flow channel (called a throat) where the shift from their expansion chamber into the throat is the choke point, as shown in figure 1. Now the area of the choke point is not shown, because the throat is smaller and thus would not provide the indicated area at the choke which is where Greer teaches making such a choke point (being the inlet and shift from the expansion chamber into the throat) larger. The choke point, is being understood as a point in the system where the fluid line is limited, i.e. decreased. See below annotated figure to better convey what the examiner understands the choke point to be in the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
379
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752