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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on June 16, 2026 was received. Claim 1 was amended and claim 18 was cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued October 7, 2024.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 16, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant has amended claim 1 to return the phrase “adjustable fastener” to “depth adjustment mechanism” which it previously read. As previously indicated in the Office Action dated June 1, 2023, the limitation “depth adjustment mechanism” is a means-plus-function limitation which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn because Applicant amended the “adjustable fastener” to read “depth adjustment mechanism” which is supported.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 16 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 limitation “depth adjustment mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As stated previously, most recently in the Office Action dated October 7, 2024, the specification does not discuss any physical structure related to the claimed “depth adjustment mechanism”. Paragraph 18 of the specification merely states what the depth adjustment mechanism (614) does, but not what it is, and figure 46 merely shows an arrow pointing to the front of the applicator with no additional specificity. None of the fasteners near the arrow can possibly be the claimed “depth adjustment mechanism”, as they all perform different functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jannssen (US 4,566,816) in view of Giacomelli (US 5,836,040), Wilson et al. (US 2013/0056020) and Meyers (US 7,396,187) on claims 1, 5-8, 10, 14 and 16 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to include subject matter previously found in now-cancelled claim 18 which required an additional reference.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jannssen in view of Giacomelli, Wilson et al., Meyers and Burns (US 2013/0269806).
Regarding claim 1: Janssen discloses a fluid application system having a pressure fed paint roller (10) with a handle (34) which is a carrier, a roller (14) which is a fluid applicator that applies paint from a pressurized paint source (25) to a substrate (col. 3 lines 51+, col. 4 lines 1-10, figure 1). Janssen fails to explicitly disclose the claimed pivot and rotate system having the links and post enabling the claimed pivoting and rotational movement.
However, Giacomelli discloses a similar fluid application tool which includes a pivot and rotate system that has a metal block (4) which is a first link having an L shaped edge with vertical and horizontal surfaces, the block (4) being rotatably connected to the applicator spatula (6) by way of an idle rotating pin (5) capable of 360 degree rotation which is a post extending vertically from the top of the applicator (6), a pair of brackets (2) which is a second link having a rounded rectangular shape which is pivotably connected to the handle (1), the pin (5) and block (4) forming a first rotate point and the block (4) and brackets (2) forming a second pivot point at a pin (3), the angle between the block (4) and brackets (2) being adjustable through the pivoting motion, where the brackets (2) form a single link having a central longitudinal axis which is parallel to that of the handle (1) (col. 2 lines 8-31, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pivot and rotate arrangement similar to that of Giacomelli in the system of Janssen because Giacomelli teaches that this arrangement significantly reduces the effort required to apply the material on the part of the operator (col. 1 lines 7-41).
Janssen and Giacomelli fail to explicitly disclose a mixing portion receiving a first part or a second part of the fluid with a vee manifold and mixing and/or applying it to the applicator. However, Wilson et al. discloses a similar applicator that includes two removable reservoirs (136, 138) that supply two parts of a fluid to a vee shaped manifold (150) such that it is a removably attached mixing portion that receives both parts of the composition and mixes them (par. 52, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a two-part liquid with a mixing portion as taught by Wilson et al. in the system of Janssen because use of a known technique to improve a similar device is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Janssen, Giacomelli and Wilson et al. fail to explicitly disclose a depth adjustment mechanism configured to raise and lower the fluid applicator relative to the substrate. However, Meyers discloses a similar fluid application tool which is provided with a nut (32) on the upper portion (30) of the handle which is adjustable in order to adjust the length of the device (10) and therefore raise or lower the applicator relative to the substrate (col. 4 lines 51+, figure 1). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a similar adjustable nut as taught by Meyers for the apparatus of Janssen, Giacomelli and Wilson et al. because making an element adjustable is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Janssen, Giacomelli, Wilson et al. and Meyers fail to explicitly disclose that the components being mixed are two parts of a two-part adhesive which cure upon mixing to form a third homogenous chemical substance. However, Burns discloses a similar two-part liquid dispensing manifold which supplies two components of a two-part adhesive from two separate apertures (40, 42) to an outlet opening (38) or mixing tip (92) which is an exit portion such that a first substance such as polyurethane polymer and an isocyanate and a second substance such as polyol and polypropylene glycol mix at the outlet (38) or mixing tip and thereafter harden or cure to become a third homogeneous substance (pars. 9, 39-40, 45, 52, figures 1-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vee manifold for mixing the substances as taught by Burns for the apparatus of Janssen, Giacomelli, Wilson et al. and Meyers because Burns teaches that this arrangement helps prevent difficult-to-remove clogs of hardened adhesive mixture (pars. 9-13, 52) and Giacomelli teaches that one of the uses of the apparatus is for adhesive application (col. 1 lines 7-14) such that the combined device would benefit from enhanced adhesive application abilities.
Regarding claim 5: Janssen discloses that the paint roller cover (14) has a contoured body with a removable contoured fiber material which receives the fluid through a manifold assembly (22) (col. 3 lines 51+, col. 4 lines 1-10, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 6: Janssen discloses that the roller is removably attachable to and from the frame assembly (14) and has multiple contoured body portions, including the surface of the roller cover (14) itself and the end caps (16) (col. 4 lines 11-28, figure 2).
Regarding claims 7-8: Janssen discloses a manifold assembly (22) which is a fluid dispensing portion removably attached to the frame (12) and handle (34) (figure 2), the assembly (22) having multiple sections each including a plurality of openings (28) such that it can be considered a first and second section with first and second openings (28) for each section, where some of the discharge openings are spaced apart at shorter distance spacings than others and some have different diameters than others (col. 6 lines 6-62, figures 2, 6-7, 9).
Regarding claim 10: Janssen, Giacomelli and Wilson et al. teach the combined device above in which the mixed fluid is applied to a plurality of small openings (28), which can be considered tips (see Janssen figures 6-7).
Regarding claim 16: Janssen and Giacomelli disclose that the block (4) and the brackets (2) are pivotably connected via a pin (3) which is a pivot fastener including a wing nut (3a) (Giacomelli col. 2 lines 16-22, figure 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant again only broadly argues that none of the references teach the instant claim limitations, but provides no specific arguments.
In response:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Once again, Applicant has merely amended the independent claim with features from a dependent claim but failed to present any arguments or reasoning as to why the prior rejection of that dependent claim (most recently in the Office Action dated December 16, 2025) was in any way improper or how the references no longer read on the claims as amended. In fact, every claim limitation presented in the current claims listing has been rejected properly twice before this Office Action, and Applicant has provided no arguments or reasoning against these rejections. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
7/28/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights