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
The response filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged. Six pages of amended claims were received on 1/15/20276. Dependent Claim 21 is newly presented. Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below. Claim 21 is objected to as noted below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “at least one control element” in Claim 9, which uses the generic placeholder of “element” that is coupled with functional language of “control” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “at least one control element” in Claim 9 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0062 of the Specification which states, “according to Fig. 3, is that an in particular recessed opening 16 for a control element 5 of the spray gun 1 is formed in the rear wall of the second region designed as a cover casing 12 in the exemplary embodiment. This opening 16 is in particular designed for the receiving and embedding of the control element 5 of the spray gun 1 in a recessed manner”. Figs. 3-4 show the control element #5 as a structure that appears to be a button or switch. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole, the examiner will interpret the “at least one control element” in Claim 9 as being a button, a switch, or equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “element” but are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
The “at least one galvanically conductive grounding element” in Claims 11 and 19, which is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). While the limitation uses the generic placeholder “element”, it is not interpreted as being coupled with functional language since “galvanically conductive grounding” corresponds to a structure that is equivalent to a conductive electrical connection.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 (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 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 1-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2008/0191067 A1 to Mauchle et al. (“Mauchle”) in view of US PGPUB 2006/0202060 A1 to Alexander (“Alexander”).
As to Claim 1, Mauchle discloses
a powder spray gun (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, and See Paragraph 0016) comprising:
a handle (#6) having a base body (See Annotated Fig. 1);
a rear casing (See Annotated Fig. 4, See Figs. 6-7, and See Paragraphs 0034 and 0044. The rear casing is made up of combination of #50 and #84.)
a gun barrel (#4) having a base body (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
a nozzle assembly (See Fig. 10 showing nozzle assembly #116 which is attached to #2 via #108),
wherein the base body of the handle is integrally formed with the base body of the gun barrel as a monolithic plastic injection molded part to form a base body of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0020);
wherein the rear casing of the powder spray gun is attached to a rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 4, Figs. 6-7, and See Paragraphs 0034 and 0044), and wherein the rear casing of the powder spray gun comprises a first region (#50) designed as a handle casing (See Paragraph 0034 and Annotated Fig. 4) and a second region (#84) designed as a cover casing for rear-side covering of a rear-most rearward facing surface of the gun barrel (See Paragraph 0044);
wherein the base body of the gun barrel has a front region extending to the nozzle assembly of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 4) and a rear-side rear region opposite the front region of the base body of the gun barrel (See Annotated Fig. 1);
wherein the handle is arranged between the front region and rear region (See Annotated Fig. 1) in an area in which the handle is located below a center of mass of the gun barrel as a whole (See Annotated Fig. 1, the entire gun barrel is located above the handle, thus the handle is located below a center of mass of the gun barrel as a whole);
wherein the powder spray gun further comprises an adapter that is provided on a lower region of the handle (See Annotated Fig. 4) and that provides a connection between a coating material supply line (#54) and a coating material line running through the handle (#22, See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and Paragraph 0034); and
wherein the powder spray gun further comprises an electrode arrangement (See Figs. 3-4 and Paragraphs 0053-0054. The electrode arrangement is made up of #48, #112, #114, and connecting electrical components) accommodated or integrated in the gun barrel of the powder spray gun (See Fig. 4) in order to electrostatically charge coating material to be sprayed by the powder spray gun (See Paragraphs 0003 and 0053-0054).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle does not specifically disclose wherein the rear casing is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Fig. 4 of Mauchle, the rear casing is formed as a combination of #50 and #84. Mauchle does not disclose specific materials of #50 and #84).
However, Alexander discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating, a spray gun (See Fig. 1b) comprising a casing (#10, which is a component that forms part of a casing of the spray gun) that is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Paragraph 0026 disclosing #10 being made from moldable nylon 12 polyamide, which is an anti-static plastic material).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally Mauchle already discloses integral injection molding of #4 with #6 (See Paragraph 0020), and it has been held that the use of an integral construction instead of a construction that is not integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder spray gun of Mauchle as applied to Claim 1 above such that the rear casing of Mauchle is formed as a monolithic component by integrally molding #50 and #84 out of an anti-static plastic material that is Nylon 12 polyamide, since doing so would yield the predictable result of using an abrasion resistant material (See Alexander Paragraph 0026) while reducing an overall number of components needed to assemble the powder spray gun (See Mauchle Fig. 4. If #40 and #84 are molded as a single component, one less overall component will be required to assemble the powder spray gun), thus reducing complexity of assembly of the powder spray gun.
As to Claim 2, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein the rear casing comprises a transition region connecting the first region designed as a handle casing to the second region designed as a cover casing (See Annotated Fig. 4 and See Fig. 6.).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein the first region designed as a handle casing is curved or angled in cross section at least in some areas (See Annotated Fig. 7 and See Fig. 8 showing curved and angled segments) and comprises a rear wall (See Annotated Fig. 7 and See Fig. 8 showing a rear wall) and two side walls integrally formed thereon (See Annotated Fig. 7 showing one side wall. Another side wall is on an opposite side of the handle casing).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 3 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein outer surfaces of the rear wall and the side walls formed on the first region designed as a handle casing have a surface configuration adapted for increasing a secure grip formed as a multi-edged curved shape adapted to a human hand (See Annotated Fig. 7 and See Fig. 8. #50 has multiple edges and curves on the curved and angled segments such that it is adapted for increasing a secure grip by portions of a human hand when a human hand wraps around #50).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 3 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein at least one cable strain relief is integrated into the rear wall of the first region designed as a handle casing (See Annotated Fig. 4 and See Paragraphs 0032-0034. A portion inside of #50 accommodates cable #42 such that the portion inside of #50 is capable of relieving strain on cable #42).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein the second region designed as a cover casing is curved in cross section at least in some areas (See Annotated Fig. 7 and Annotated Fig. 8) and comprises a rear wall (See Annotated Fig. 8) and two side walls integrally formed thereon (See Annotated Fig. 7 showing one side wall, another side wall is formed on an opposite side).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 6 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein the second region designed as a cover casing further comprises an upper wall integrally formed on the rear wall and the side walls formed on the second region designed as a cover casing (See Annotated Fig. 4) with at least sections or parts thereof disposed opposite the first region designed as a handle casing (See Annotated Fig. 4, the upper wall is at a top of the cover casing while the handle casing is at a bottom of the cover casing).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 6 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein at least one recessed opening (See Annotated Fig. 8) for at least one control element of the powder spray gun (See #98 and #96 in Fig. 8, which per Paragraph 0045 are buttons that are equivalent to control elements) is provided in the rear wall of the second region designed as a cover casing (See Annotated Fig. 8), wherein the at least one recessed opening is configured to receive and/or embed the at least one control element in a recessed manner (See Paragraph 0045 Annotated Fig. 4, and Annotated Fig. 8).
As to Claim 13, Mauchle discloses
a powder spray gun (See Fig. 4, Fig. 7, and See Paragraph 0016) comprising:
a handle (#6) having a base body (See Annotated Fig. 1);
a rear casing (See Annotated Fig. 4, See Figs. 6-7, and See Paragraphs 0034 and 0044. The rear casing is made up of combination of #50 and #84.)
a gun barrel (#4) having a base body (See Annotated Fig. 1); and
a nozzle assembly (See Fig. 10 showing nozzle assembly #116 which is attached to #2 via #108),
wherein the base body of the handle is integrally formed with the base body of the gun barrel as a monolithic plastic injection molded part to form a base body of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Paragraph 0020);
wherein the rear casing of the powder spray gun is attached to a rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 4, Figs. 6-7, and See Paragraphs 0034 and 0044), and wherein the rear casing of the powder spray gun comprises a first region (#50) designed as a handle casing (See Paragraph 0034 and Annotated Fig. 4) and a second region (#84) designed as a cover casing for rear-side covering of a rear-most rearward facing surface of the gun barrel (See Paragraph 0044);
wherein the base body of the gun barrel has a front region extending to the nozzle assembly of the powder spray gun (See Annotated Fig. 1 and See Fig. 4) and a rear-side rear region opposite the front region of the base body of the gun barrel (See Annotated Fig. 1);
wherein the handle is arranged between the front region and rear region (See Annotated Fig. 1) in an area in which the handle is located below a center of mass of the gun barrel as a whole (See Annotated Fig. 1, the entire gun barrel is located above the handle, thus the handle is located below a center of mass of the gun barrel as a whole);
wherein the powder spray gun further comprises an adapter that is provided on a lower region of the handle (See Annotated Fig. 4) and that provides a connection between a coating material supply line (#54) and a coating material line running through the handle (#22, See Fig. 1, Fig. 4, and Paragraph 0034);
wherein the powder spray gun further comprises an electrode arrangement (See Figs. 3-4 and Paragraphs 0053-0054. The electrode arrangement is made up of #48, #112, #114, and connecting electrical components) accommodated or integrated in the gun barrel of the powder spray gun (See Fig. 4) in order to electrostatically charge coating material to be sprayed by the powder spray gun (See Paragraphs 0003 and 0053-0054); and
wherein an at least partially graded area is provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail showing a graded area that is slanted at varying angles over multiple portions of the graded area in the views shown on a right longitudinal edge end on side walls of the rear casing), on frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail, the graded area is on a front facing side of the right longitudinal edge), wherein the frontal areas are formed complementary to a corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail, a corresponding slanted area is on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun that mates with the rear casing).
Regarding Claim 13, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle as applied to Claim 13 above, Mauchle does not specifically disclose wherein the rear casing is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Fig. 4 of Mauchle, the rear casing is formed as a combination of #50 and #84. Mauchle does not disclose specific materials of #50 and #84).
However, Alexander discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating, a spray gun (See Fig. 1b) comprising a casing (#10) that is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Paragraph 0026 disclosing #10 being made from moldable nylon 12 polyamide, which is an anti-static plastic material).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally Mauchle already discloses integral injection molding of #4 with #6 (See Paragraph 0020), and it has been held that the use of an integral construction instead of a construction that is not integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder spray gun of Mauchle as applied to Claim 13 above such that the rear casing of Mauchle is formed as a monolithic component by integrally molding #50 and #84 out of an anti-static plastic material that is Nylon 12 polyamide, since doing so would yield the predictable result of using an abrasion resistant material (See Alexander Paragraph 0026) while reducing an overall number of components needed to assemble the powder spray gun (See Mauchle Fig. 4. If #40 and #84 are molded as a single component, one less overall component will be required to assemble the powder spray gun), thus reducing complexity of assembly of the powder spray gun.
As to Claim 14, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein at least one opening (See #90 in Fig. 6) is formed in the rear casing for accommodating a screw (See #88 in Fig. 6) for detachably fixing the rear casing to the base body of the powder spray gun (See Paragraph 0044).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Alexander further discloses wherein the anti-static plastic material comprises Polyamide 12 (See Alexander Paragraph 0026).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle further discloses wherein one single opening (See #90 in Fig. 6) is formed in the rear casing for accommodating a screw (See #88 in Fig. 6) for detachably fixing the rear casing to the base body of the powder spray gun (See Paragraph 0044 disclosing that #84 is attached to #2 with one or more screws. Thus #90 can be considered a single opening to accommodate screw #88).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauchle in view of Alexander and US PGPUB 2015/0231652 A1 to Ulrich (“Ulrich”).
Regarding Claim 11, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 6 above, Mauchle does not specifically disclose wherein at least one galvanically conductive grounding element is integrated into the rear casing.
However, Ulrich discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating, a powder spray gun (See Fig. 2 and Paragraph 0012) wherein at least one galvanically conductive grounding element (See Paragraph 0024 and See Fig. 5 showing two galvanically conductive ground elements that are #92 “grounded fasteners” which are galvanically conductive since they are conductive pins or bolts related to direct current of electricity. #92, which is mounted in #44, connects with #94 and #88 and #90 that are in gun barrel #30 to form a grounding electrical connection.), is integrated into a rear casing of the powder spray gun (See Fig. 4 and Paragraphs 0024-0026. #92 is integrated and secured to rear casing #44, while #94, #88, and #90 of the grounded connection are in gun barrel #30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 6 above such that it includes the galvanically conductive grounding elements #92 of Ulrich integrated into #84 of the rear casing of Mauchle while including grounding connection #94, #88, and #90 integrated into the gun barrel #4 of Mauchle, since doing so would yield the predictable result of drawing increased corona discharges thus improving ionization efficiency during electrostatic spraying (See Ulrich Paragraph 0025).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander and Ulrich as applied to Claim 11 above, Mauchle modified by Alexander and Ulrich further discloses wherein the at least one galvanically conductive grounding element is integrated into material of one of the two side walls of the second region designed as a cover casing (See Figs. 4-5 and Paragraphs 0024-0027 of Ulrich, galvanically conductive grounding elements #92 go through material on a side wall of #44 in order to connect to #30. Modifying Mauchle in view of Ulrich results in the galvanically conductive grounding elements #92 being integrated into material on a side wall of #84 of the rear casing of Mauchle by traveling through side walls of #84 to connect to grounding connection #94, #88, and #90 that will are integrated into the gun barrel #4 of Mauchle).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauchle in view of Alexander and US PGPUB 2017/0304853 A1 to Krayer (“Krayer”).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle does not specifically disclose wherein a centering device, formed as a centering tab, is provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing to effect an independent aligning of a position of the rear casing relative to the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun when the rear casing is mounted on the rear side of the base body (See Annotated Fig. 6 which appears to show a centering tab, but centering tabs being on front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing are not specifically disclosed or shown in any figures).
However Krayer discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating, a spray gun (See Fig. 1) comprising a centering device, formed as a centering tab (See Annotated Fig. 2 showing multiple centering devices formed as tabs on edges of #11a), that is provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of a rear casing (See Annotated Fig. 2, the centering devices are tabs located on edges of #11a of rear casing #5) to effect an independent aligning of a position of the rear casing relative to a rear side of a base body (#7) of the spray gun when the rear casing is mounted on the rear side of the base body (See Fig. 1, Annotated Fig. 2, and Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above such that centering devices of Krayer, formed as centering tabs, are provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing of Mauchle to effect an independent aligning of a position of the rear casing relative to the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun when the rear casing is mounted on the rear side of the base body, since doing so would yield the predictable result of assisting in properly aligning the rear casing with the base body (See Krayer Figs. 1-5 and See Fig. 7 of Mauchle. If centering tabs of Krayer are implemented on #50 and #84 of Mauchle, it will assist in the rear casing of Mauchle being aligned with #2 of Mauchle.).
PNG
media_image1.png
721
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
853
1111
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
778
653
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
733
948
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
487
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
662
731
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
737
764
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 21: “wherein the graded area provided on the frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing is configured to form a labyrinth seal with the corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun”.
Regarding dependent Claim 21, in reference to the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above, Mauchle does not disclose wherein the graded area provided on the frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing is configured to form a labyrinth seal with the corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun (See a graded area shown in Annotated Fig. 7-Detail of Mauchle, where a labyrinth seal is not disclosed. Annotated Fig. 6 of Mauchle shows one centering tab attaching the rear casing on the powder spray gun, but a seal that is a labyrinth on the graded area is not shown). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to further reconfigure the powder spray gun of Mauchle in view of Alexander as applied to Claim 1 above such that the graded area provided on the frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing is configured to form a labyrinth seal with the corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun as required by dependent Claim 21, as there is no prior teaching in Mauchle, Alexander, or other prior art that indicates that making such a further modification of the powder spray gun would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Regarding independent Claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muachle in view of Alexander, applicant argues that the components of Mauchle and Alexander are not analogous to each other and that a person skilled in the art looking to simplify Mauchle's design by applying the teachings of Alexander would be motivated to make #2 of Mauchle from a different material or as a monolithic piece, not to modify the separate rear casing that covers it, and that there is no teaching or suggestion in Alexander to create a monolithic cover for a device, because Alexander's device does not have such a cover. Applicant argues that the proposed modification of Mauchle based on the teachings of Alexander lacks any suggestion, motivation, or rational reason that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mauchle's rear cover to be a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material in view of Alexander's teachings of a monolithic handle, since Mauchle's handle is already a monolithic component. Applicant argues that the examiner’s combination constitutes improper hindsight reconstruction and that a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to pick a teaching related to a base handle in Alexander and apply it to a non-analogous rear cover in Mauchle, since the problem solved by the claimed invention of providing rigidity and improved sealing by making the rear casing monolithic is not addressed or suggested by the proposed combination.
These arguments are not found persuasive. A prima facie case of obviousness is established by presenting evidence indicating that the reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972). The claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). It is noted that the rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale to modify may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It is noted that skill, not the converse, is presumed on the part of those practicing in the art (In re Sovish, 226 USPQ 771) and a conclusion of obviousness can be made from "common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference. (In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)).
Regarding Claim 1, Mauchle does not specifically disclose wherein the rear casing is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Fig. 4 of Mauchle, the rear casing is formed as a combination of #50 and #84. Mauchle does not disclose specific materials of #50 and #84). However, Alexander discloses, in the same field of endeavor of spray coating, a spray gun (See Fig. 1b) comprising a casing (#10, which is a component that can be considered equivalent to a rear casing since it encases a rear portion of #12) that is formed as a monolithic component made of an anti-static plastic material (See Paragraph 0026 disclosing #10 being made from moldable nylon 12 polyamide, which is an anti-static plastic material). Additionally, Mauchle already discloses integral injection molding of #4 with #6 (See Paragraph 0020), and it has been held that the use of an integral construction instead of a construction that is not integral would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). See MPEP 2144.04.V.B. Therefore, based on the prior art of Mauchle and Alexander as a whole, and taking into account that usage of an integral construction is an obvious known engineering choice based on established design principles and prior case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the powder spray gun of Mauchle such that the rear casing of Mauchle is formed as a monolithic component by integrally molding #50 and #84 out of an anti-static plastic material that is Nylon 12 polyamide, since doing so would yield the predictable result of using an abrasion resistant material (See Alexander Paragraph 0026) while reducing an overall number of components needed to assemble the powder spray gun by having an integral construction (See Mauchle Fig. 4. If #40 and #84 are molded as a single component, one less overall component will be required to assemble the powder spray gun), thus reducing complexity of assembly of the powder spray gun of Mauchle. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize an integral construction with #40 and #84 of Mauchle being molded together, regardless of the specific configuration of #10 of Alexander compared to the casing of Mauchle, because teachings in the prior art of Mauchle and Alexander as a whole, along with established engineering principles and case law of utilizing an integral construction, would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to do so before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, despite there being some differences between the construction of the spray guns of Mauchle and Alexander. In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding Claim 13 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mauchle in view of Alexander, applicant argues that Mauchle does not disclose the “graded area” recited in claim, and points to the Specification in Paragraphs 0030 and 0067 which describes the "graded area" #19 as forming a “labyrinth sealing area”, thus the disclosure provides context and describes a specific, engineered profile designed to achieve a technical effect of having enhanced sealing against powder infiltration. Applicant argues that Mauchle shows a simple mating surface where the rear casing components #50 and #84 abut the gun body #2, with a surface that is contoured to fit, however there is no disclosure of any specific “graded” profile intended to create a labyrinth seal or achieve any other specific function. Applicant argues that the Examiner's interpretation of a simple contoured joint as a “graded area” is an overly broad reading of the claim language that ignores the technical context provided by the specification, and therefore is broader than the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation in Claim 13, since the term “graded area” in the context of the invention has a specific technical meaning tied to the function of creating a labyrinth seal.
This argument is not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A claim must be interpreted in light of the specification without reading limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant misinterprets the principle that claims are interpreted in light of the specification. Although a graded area with a labyrinth seal is found as an embodiment in the specification, such a graded area is not claimed explicitly in Claim 13. Nor were the words that are used in the claims defined in the specification to explicitly require these limitations. A reading of the specification provides no evidence to indicate that these limitations must be imported into the claims to give meaning to disputed terms. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064. Claim 13 requires “wherein an at least partially graded area is provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing, on frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing, wherein the frontal areas are formed complementary to a corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun”. Mauchle discloses wherein an at least partially graded area is provided at least in some front longitudinal edge areas of side walls of the rear casing (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail showing a graded area that is slanted at varying angles over multiple portions of the graded area in the views shown on a right longitudinal edge end on side walls of the rear casing), on frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail, the graded area is on a front facing side of the right longitudinal edge), wherein the frontal areas are formed complementary to a corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun (See Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 7-detail, a corresponding slanted area is on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun that mates with the rear casing). Thus, the graded area of Mauchle reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed graded area since the graded area of Mauchle is an inclined area, regardless of applicant’s disclosed graded area having a labyrinth seal with specific sealing benefits.
Therefore, Claims 1-7, 9, 11-14, 16, and 19-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted above. Claim 21, which more specifically claims “wherein the graded area provided on the frontal areas of the front longitudinal edge of the side walls of the rear casing is configured to form a labyrinth seal with the corresponding area on the rear side of the base body of the powder spray gun” is objected to and contains allowable subject matter as noted above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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 O Hall can be reached on (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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
February 6, 2026