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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 3 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14, 16, and 18-28 remain pending in the application. Claims 13, 15, and 17 were previously canceled. Claims 1-11 were previously withdrawn as being directed to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 26-28 are 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.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation that the nozzle has a size ranging from about 5/25 to about 12/41 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what a size of 5/25 or 12/41 is without units or without a further reference to a well-known or conventional nozzle size standard. A search of both patent and non-patent literature did not reveal such a standard and indicate that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to clearly identify what size nozzle is required.
Regarding both claims 27 and 28, the limitations to an “841 nozzle” and a “517 spray tip”, respectively, renders these claims indefinite because it is unclear how the numbers further limit the structures. A search of both patent and non-patent literature did not reveal any standard or convention that is well-known and commonly used, which indicates that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to clearly identify how these numbers further limit the recited structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 12, 18, 20-21, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams et al. (US 2016/0030955) in view of Rose (US 2017/0203314).
Regarding claim 12, Adams disclose an apparatus (10) for spraying, said apparatus comprising:
a handle (13) coupled to a first barrel (fig. 1 - the right barrel), wherein said first barrel is coupled to a second barrel (102); a first nozzle (11) coupled to said first barrel (fig. 1); a second nozzle (103) coupled to said second barrel (fig. 1), and wherein said first nozzle is oriented at an angular relationship to said second nozzle (fig. 4); wherein said second nozzle faces a first direction (see annotated figure); wherein said handle comprises a valve (par. 34; fig. 2), and wherein said first and second barrels are in fluid communication with dissimilar fluids (par. 39 - via ports 105 and 14), wherein said first barrel is in fluid communication with a coating source (par. 39 - the “adhesive”), and wherein said second barrel is in fluid communication with a quick-set formula source (par. 39 - the “activator”), wherein said quick-set formula source comprises a brine (par. 30); and wherein said second nozzle is located downstream from said first nozzle (fig. 4);
wherein no air is added during the spraying (par. 18 - “airless adhesive spray system”);
wherein the first nozzle and said second nozzle are sufficiently separated such that the coating is applied first, and wherein said quick-set formula is applied atop said coating when said handle is moved backwards away from the first direction of the second nozzle (fig. 4 – because the second nozzle is directed toward the direction of the spray produced by the first nozzle, the quick-set formula discharged from the second nozzle will be applied atop the coating when the sprayer is moved in any direction; see also annotated figure);
PNG
media_image1.png
400
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are oriented such that said coating source reaches a surface first and then thereafter said quick-set formula is applied atop said coating when said handle is moved backwards (fig. 4 – because the second nozzle is oriented toward the direction of the spray produced by the first nozzle, the coating discharged from the second nozzle will have a slightly longer distance to travel and will be applied atop the coating when the sprayer is moved in any direction);
and wherein said first nozzle and said second nozzle are oriented such that the coating source and said quick-set formula are kept separate during application (fig. 4).
Adams does not wherein said second barrel is parallel with said first barrel.
Rose teaches an apparatus (fig. 1) for spraying, said apparatus comprising: a handle (1) coupled to a first barrel (fig. 5 – the left barrel, 9), wherein said first barrel is coupled to a second barrel (fig. 5 – the right barrel, 9); a first nozzle (left 12) coupled to said first barrel (fig. 2); a second nozzle (right 12) coupled to said second barrel (fig. 2), wherein said second barrel is parallel with said first barrel (fig. 5); wherein said handle comprises a valve (6, see par. 40 and figs. 4, 5), and wherein said first and second barrels are in fluid communication with dissimilar fluids (par. 37), wherein said first barrel is in fluid communication with a coating source (par. 37 - the “adhesive”), and wherein said second barrel is in fluid communication with a quick-set formula source (par. 37 - the “activator”); wherein no air is added during the spraying (par. 37 - “the spray gun is fully airless”); wherein the first nozzle and said second nozzle are sufficiently separated such that the coating is applied first, and wherein said quick-set formula is applied atop said coating and wherein the first nozzle and the second nozzle are oriented such that said coating source reaches a surface first and then thereafter said quick-set formula is applied atop said coating (fig. 4, 5 - when an operator makes a pass with the spray gun from right to left the first nozzle will apply the coating material first and the second nozzle will apply the quick-set formula after and atop of the coating; any surface arranged at a point closer to the apparatus than the intersection of the spray streams will be coated by the first nozzle and subsequently by the quick-set formula from the second nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spraying apparatus of Adams such that the second barrel is parallel with said first barrel, as taught by Rose, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Such a rearrangement of the barrel of Adams would not require any extraordinary skill and could improve the ergonomics of the spray gun or ease manufacturing of the spray gun. Further, Applicant notes that the arrangement of two parallel barrels is for illustrative purposes only and is not limiting (Applicant’s Specification, par. 52).
Regarding claim 18, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein the second barrel is longer than said first barrel, as shown below.
PNG
media_image2.png
456
530
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein the apparatus has a pressure of between 1,000 and 5,000 psi. Regarding this claim, it is noted that this limitation is directed to a manner of using the apparatus, and a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114, section II.
Regarding claim 21, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein said first nozzle and said second nozzle are sufficiently separated (figs. 3, 4) such that the first coating is applied to a surface with said first nozzle, then when the apparatus is moved backwards, the surface previously sprayed by the first nozzle is now being sprayed with the second nozzle. Regarding this claim, it is noted that this is a functional limitation, and it has been held that when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding claim 26 as best understood, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, but not wherein said first nozzle has a size ranging from about 5/25 to about 12/41. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a size ranging from about 5/25 to about 12/41 for the first nozzle since our reviewing courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, it is noted that Applicant has disclosed that nozzles of various sizes can be used and has not disclosed a criticality with a nozzle having the recited size (Applicant’s Specification, par. 62).
Regarding claim 27 as best understood, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, but does not appear to further disclose wherein said first nozzle comprises an 841 nozzle with 3,000 psi. For the purposes of examination, an “841” nozzle will be interpreted to be an airless spray nozzle of a specific design. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to choose an “841” nozzle for use in the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose in order to achieve a desired spray pattern and droplet size. Further, Applicant has disclosed that the first nozzle can be any of a variety of different nozzles; therefore, there is no disclosed criticality of the “841” nozzle to the instant invention (par. 104).
Regarding claim 28 as best understood, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, but does not appear to further disclose wherein said second nozzle comprises a 517 spray tip at 1500 psi. For the purposes of examination, a “517” spray tip will be interpreted to be an airless spray tip of a specific design. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to choose a “517” spray tip for use in the second nozzle in the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose in order to achieve a desired spray pattern and droplet size. Further, Applicant has disclosed that the spray tip of the second nozzle can be any of a variety of different spray tips; therefore, there is no disclosed criticality of the “517” spray tip to the instant invention (par. 103).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Rose and further in view of Hochbrueckner (US 2016/0354793).
Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein said second nozzle is oriented approximately parallel with said second barrel, and wherein said first nozzle is oriented at an angular relationship to said second nozzle (figs. 1, 4). But Adams in view of Rose does not further disclose wherein said first nozzle is oriented approximately perpendicular to said second nozzle.
Hochbrueckner teaches an apparatus for spraying comprising a first nozzle (126) and a second nozzle (136), and wherein said first nozzle is oriented approximately perpendicular to said second nozzle (fig. 2; par. 58).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose such that said first nozzle is oriented approximately perpendicular to said second nozzle, as taught by Hochbrueckner, since this was known to produce a small droplet size in the spray (Hochbrueckner, par. 54).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Rose and further in view of Besser (US 3,042,315).
Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, but not further comprising an internal chrome coating.
Besser teaches an apparatus for spraying (col. 1, ln. 7-9) comprising a handle (22) coupled to a first barrel (10), wherein said first barrel is coupled to a second barrel (17); a first nozzle (41) coupled to said first barrel (fig. 3); wherein said handle comprises a valve (col. 3, ln. 30-33); wherein said first and second barrels are in fluid communication with dissimilar fluids (fig. 1 - via elements 69 and 84), and further comprising an internal chrome coating (col. 1, ln. 18-21).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose to further comprise an internal chrome coating, as taught by Besser, since this was known that such a coating will not rust or pit (Besser - col. 1, ln. 20-21).
Claims 14 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Rose and further in view of Cook et al. (US 2006/0128831).
Regarding claim 14, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein said coating source comprises an acrylic roof coating (par. 32 - the acrylic coating disclosed can be applied to a roof), and wherein said brine comprises a calcium chloride (par. 30). Adams in view of Rose does not explicitly disclose wherein said acrylic roof coating comprises greater than 50% acrylic coating by weight.
Cook teaches an acrylic roof coating (par. 2, 27) comprising greater than 50% acrylic resin by weight (par. 32).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose to use an acrylic roof coating comprising greater than 50% acrylic resin by weight, as taught by Cook, since this was known to be substantially free of volatile compounds (par. 27).
Regarding claim 23, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 14, but not further wherein said acrylic roof coating comprises greater than 75% acrylic resin.
Cook teaches an acrylic roof coating (par. 2, 27) comprising greater than 75% acrylic resin (par. 32).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose to use an acrylic roof coating comprising greater than 75% acrylic resin, as taught by Cook, since this was known to be substantially free of volatile compounds (par. 27).
Regarding claim 24, Adams in view of Rose and Cook discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 23, and Cook further teaches wherein said acrylic roof coating comprises a white (par. 132, 134) styrenated acrylic roof coating (par. 59).
Claims 22 and 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adams in view of Rose and further in view of Evans (US 5,152,462).
Regarding claim 22, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, and further wherein said first nozzle is closer to said handle than said second nozzle (fig. 4), and wherein said first nozzle and said second nozzle are oriented such that they will not intersect (fig. 4 – the nozzles themselves do not intersect, although they are oriented toward a common point in space). Adams in view of Rose does not disclose that the first nozzle and the second nozzle are oriented such that the coating source and quick-set formula exiting said first and said second nozzles will not intersect.
Evans teaches an apparatus (fig. 3) comprising a first nozzle (22) and a second nozzle (16), wherein said first nozzle is oriented to spray downward (fig. 3 – when the apparatus in oriented horizontally, nozzle 22 is pointed downward) and wherein said second nozzle is oriented such that the material exiting said first nozzle and the material exiting said second nozzle will not intersect (fig. 3).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose such that the first nozzle and the second nozzle are oriented such that the coating source and quick-set formula exiting said first and said second nozzles will not intersect, as taught by Evans. This arrangement was known to allow two separate streams of fluids to be applied concurrently without either spray adversely affecting the other.
Regarding claim 25, Adams in view of Rose discloses the apparatus described regarding claim 12, but not further wherein said first nozzle is oriented to spray downward and wherein said second nozzle is oriented to spray outward in parallel orientation with said second barrel.
Evans teaches an apparatus (fig. 3) comprising a first nozzle (22) and a second nozzle (16) and a second barrel (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the port in element 15 in which nozzle 16 is disposed), and wherein said first nozzle is oriented to spray downward (fig. 3 – when the apparatus in oriented horizontally, nozzle 22 is pointed downward) and wherein said second nozzle is oriented to spray outward in parallel orientation with said second barrel (col. 4, ln. 16-18; fig. 3 – when the apparatus in oriented horizontally, nozzle 16 is oriented away from the general longitudinal axis element 15; see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image3.png
356
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Adams in view of Rose such that said first nozzle is oriented to spray downward and wherein said second nozzle is oriented to spray outward in parallel orientation with said second barrel, as taught by Evans. This arrangement was known to allow two separate streams of fluids to be applied concurrently without either spray adversely affecting the other (col. 4, ln. 14-37)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the meanings of these numbers because the first number denotes half the width of the spray in inches, and the last two numbers refer to the size of the orifice in thousandths of an inch. The argument is not found convincing because Applicant has not provided any additional, unbiased evidence (such as a reference) to support this assertion. Further, the width of the spray produced by the nozzle will be expanding as a function of the distance from the nozzle. At what distance is the width determined? Finally, Applicant’s arguments do not explain the limitation in claim 26, which states “a size ranging from about 5/25 to about 12/41” (whereas claims 27 and 28 refer to an “841 nozzle” and a “517 spray tip”). For these reasons, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the 112(b) rejections of claims 26-28 are maintained.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that Adams in view of fails to disclose the limitation “wherein said second barrel is parallel with said first barrel”. In particular Applicant argues that Rose fails to disclose this feature. In response, it is noted that figure 5 of Rose shows both the first and second barrels (both identified with reference numeral 9) arranged in parallel. It is further noted that element 15, at the end of the barrels of Rose, are interpreted to be part of the nozzles, not as part of the barrels. See also the annotated figure below. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not found convincing and the rejection is maintained.
PNG
media_image4.png
470
650
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would have no incentive to modify Adams in view of Rose in the proposed manner, and that even if this limitation is identified as being non-limiting in the specification, by being recited in the claims, it is limiting. In response, it is noted that Examiner does interpret this limitation to be limiting, and is only noting that it is not a critical feature of the disclosed invention. As such, the legal precedent used in the current rejection is proper, and the rejection is maintained. See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no incentive or benefit to the proposed modification, and that the Office Action is simply guessing by stating that such a modification could improve the ergonomics or ease manufacture, it is noted that the rejection under 103 obviousness using legal precedent does not require any incentive or benefit. See MPEP 2144(III).
Further regarding claim 12, Applicant argues that Adams in view of Rose does not disclose the limitation “wherein the first nozzle and said second nozzle are sufficiently separated such that the coating is applied first, and wherein said quick-set formula is applied atop said coating when said sprayer is moved backwards away from the direction of the second nozzle”, and “wherein said first nozzle and said second nozzle are oriented such that the coating source and said quick-set formula are kept separate during application”. In response, it is noted the structure of the sprayer of Adams is configured to function in this manner as explained in the rejection above. Further, it is noted that this limitation has not been considered to be non-limiting, but has been construed to require only an apparatus capable of performing in the manner recited. When the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.01.I. Additionally, it is noted that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose a “roof coating” or that the coating is “greater than 50% acrylic by weight”. In response, Applicant is referred to the new rejection of claim 14 above. Further, this coating can be applied to a roof, as also explained in the rejection; therefore, it is interpreted to be a “roof coating”. As already noted, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues that the proposed modification is improper because the proposed modification of Adams to make the first nozzle approximately perpendicular to the second nozzle “goes against the teaching of Adams”. In response, it is noted that a prior art reference must explicitly disclose that an element is excluded in order to “teach away”. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743, 218 USPQ 769, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Adams does not explicitly mention that the angle cannot be approximately 90° (perpendicular); therefore, Adams cannot “teach away” from this arrangement.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of the barrel lengths in Adams is arbitrary. In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The examiner’s interpretation of the prior art barrel lengths in consistent with these principles. If Applicant intends for the barrel lengths to be interpreted more specifically than this, than the claim should be amended to recite further limitations directed to these characteristics.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose an internal chrome coating. In response, it is noted that Besser teaches an internal chrome coating for the “tubular body” for the advantage of preventing corrosion, as noted in the rejection. One having ordinary skill would recognize that such a coating would be internal, because that is the critical, working surface which contacts the fluid and which would affect the performance of the apparatus. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of this claim over Adams in view of Rose and further in view of Besser is maintained.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues that Adams does not teach “a pressure of between 1,000 and 5,000 psi” and argues that this limitation has been ignored. In response, it is noted that Adams teaches an apparatus having all the limitations of the apparatus of claims 12 and 20. The limitation to the pressure is directed to the manner of using the apparatus. As noted in the rejection above, the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art. Finally, it is noted that since the structure of the apparatus of Adams is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP 2112.01.I. To overcome this rejection, Applicant is advised to add limitations to the structural features that enable to disclosed apparatus to operate at the recited pressures.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that the Office has ignored the limitation that “said first nozzle and said second nozzle are sufficiently separated such that the first coating is applied to a surface with said first nozzle, then when the apparatus is moved backwards, the surface previously sprayed by the first nozzle is now being sprayed with the second nozzle” because the Office has interpreted this to be directed to a manner of using the apparatus. In response, it is noted that Adams discloses an apparatus having an identical structure to that of claim 21, as explained in the rejection above. Adams does disclose that the first and second nozzles are oriented toward a common point of convergence at a distance in front of the apparatus; however, in any plane closer to the apparatus than that point the individual fluids do not mix and would be applied one after the other when the apparatus is swept over a surface. Applicant further argues that the rejection set forth is improper and the examiner has given no basis for rejecting the claim, which the Applicant can abut. In response, it is noted that Examiner has explained a basis for the rejection, and Applicant can attempt to rebut this rejection by showing that the disclosed structure in the prior art is incapable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 23 Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Adams in view of Cook to use acrylic coating comprising greater than 75% acrylic is improper because Adams discloses a water-based adhesive. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, it is noted that Cook teaches a coating that is water based (par. 2).
Further, in response to applicant's argument that Adams and Cook are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Adams and Cook are directed to spraying of water-based coatings.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues that Cook does not teach a “white styrenated acrylic roof coating” because the term roof does not appear in the reference and the term white does not appear in the cited paragraphs. Regarding the latter, it is noted that the appropriate paragraphs of Cook that teach a white coating have now been cited. Regarding the former, it is noted that the coating of Cook can be used as a roof coating just as in the response to Applicant’s argument that Adams does not disclose a roof coating above.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Adams in view of Evans is improper because Evans is directed to a sprayer that is not airless and are “completely dissimilar”. In response, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Adams and Evans are in the field of fluid spraying more than one material concurrently; therefore, they are considered to be analogous art and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of the prior art being used in the current rejection.
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 CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752