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Currently claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-18, and 20-23 are pending, claims 4, 10, and 19 are cancelled, claims 13-15 are withdrawn, and claims 1, 5, 8-9, 12-18, 21, and 23 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eurippini FR3030202.
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 inlet opening of central passageway (see figure 2), wherein the expansion chamber outlet opening area from the central passageway into the expansion chamber (being the passage of 26 into 40, and that said outlet shown in figure 2) is smaller than each of the cross sectional areas of the inlet (shown in figure 2) and a can valve opening (opening of 38, which revives 18 that has a valve therein) to form the choke point (see figure 2, as the noted flow from 26 into 40 is smaller than the previous flow passageways its understood that a choke point occurs).
a mouth (item 36 which is the housing of elongated opening 42) formed within the single component actuator body (being within the body of 22 and 34, 22 and 34 together forming a single component when together) 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).
Regarding claim 5, Eurippini discloses wherein the mouth has a top wall and a bottom wall and a taper angle of the mouth is an angle (a) of from 10° to 90° between the top wall of the mouth and the bottom wall of the mouth (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 is the only 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 occupies a portion of the central passageway (when combined, 18 is within 38).
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) wherein the hollow stem of the spray can occupies a portion of the central passageway (as shown in 1 and 2, the area about 18 is pressed against the area of 38, 18 is then inserted within 38).
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 slotted 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 single component 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 21, Eurippini discloses the slotted outlet is in a vertical position (when the spray cannister is held on the side and the system is rotated such that the slot is vertical)
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 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).
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eurippini 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 (04/30/2026) 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, 5, 8-9, 12-18, 21, and 23 are amended. Applicants’ amendments to the claims have failed to overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (03/03/2026).
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ amendment to claim 1 have been disclosed by Eurippini and the reference of Greer is no longer applied. As shown Eurippini has a choke point that is smaller then the each of the cross sectional areas of the inlet opening and the can valve opening.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights