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 e present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 1-3, 5-11, and 18 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 06/15/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because required hatching is missing from Fig. 5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-3, 5-11 and 18 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.
As per claim 1, the limitation “the load position is configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge” is ambiguous. Specifically, the specification explains the “load/unload switch”—in the load position—being configured to configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge. It is unclear how the load position per se accomplishes the same and the scope of the claim is therefore uncertain. A correction may include: “the load/unload switch in the load position is configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge”. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 1 is interpreted according to the aforementioned suggested correction.
Claims 2-3, 5-11 and 18 depend from claim 1 and thus inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al.
As per claims 1, 3, and 4, Bayat discloses a product applicator comprising:
a housing (11, 12, 31) having a first end and a second end (Fig. 1), and configured for releasably attaching a cartridge (Col. 2, ln. 58-60);
a dispensing force (24);
a dispensing device (16) operatively attached to the dispensing force (Fig. 1), and functionally connected to the cartridge and configured to push product from the cartridge onto a target (Col. 2, Ln. 48-53);
at least one power source (32);
a load/unload switch (37) configured to allow selection of a load position (F) and an unload position (R) and configured for pushing or pulling the dispensing device towards or away from the cartridge (switch 37 “provides for manually stopping and reversing the direction of the motor” Col. 2, Ln. 36-40; The switch 37, in combination with a trigger 33, is configured to allow selection of a “load position” and an “unload position” and for pushing or pulling the dispensing device towards or away from the cartridge), wherein the unload position is configured to cause the dispensing device to retract (Col. 2, Ln. 36-40).
a dispensing switch (33) operatively attached to the dispensing force, wherein the dispensing switch activates the dispensing force to dispense product (Col. 2, Ln. 32-36).
Bayat does not disclose: the load position is configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the gel bait cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge; the load position is configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge; at least one data operator electrically connected to the power source, wherein the product applicator is controlled at least in part by the at least one data operator.
In regards to the limitation requiring the load position configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use a cartridge with the product applicator that is shorter than the full length of the tube holder, e.g. such that in a fully retracted state, the plunger is outside of the cartridge (see Figure A, below), for reasons including to dispense material from a cartridge manufactured in a length smaller than the full length of the tube holder.
PNG
media_image1.png
348
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: US 5341958, Fig. 1 - annotated
Bayat in combination with the aforementioned modification still does not explicitly disclose “the load position configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge”, however, it has been held that: 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Bayat in combination with a short cartridge as set forth above, discloses the claimed structure and is capable being used such that the load/unload switch 37 in the “F” position, in combination with the trigger 33, is configured to “cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge”.
In regards to the limitation requiring “the load position configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge” Naughton teaches a product applicator comprising a auto-reverse circuit engaged upon released of a trigger to alleviate residual pressure within a cartridge (Col. 6, Ln. ¶ 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Bayat according to the aforementioned teachings from Naughton for reasons including to alleviate residual pressure within the cartridge from a dispensing operation.
In regards to the limitation requiring “at least one data operator electrically connected to the power source, wherein the product applicator is controlled at least in part by the at least one data operator”, Peters teaches a product applicator comprising a first data operator comprising an App running on an external mobile device wherein the product applicator is controlled remotely by the App running on a mobile device ([0024]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Bayat to remotely communicate with an App on a mobile to device, like taught by Peters, to remotely control the applicator with the mobile device.
As per claim 2, Bayat further discloses the product applicator further comprising the cartridge releasably attached to the housing (Col. 2, ln. 58-60).
As per claim 11, Peters further discloses the product applicator having a data screen being configured to display data received from said App ([0024]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Bayat according to the aforementioned teachings from Peters to provide visual notification on the product applicator of information input through the App on the external device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130020350 to Gardos et al in view of US 10758935 to Beebe.
As per claim 5, Bayat further discloses:
the housing further comprises a handle (31);
the at least one power source is a battery pack (Col. 2, ¶ 4);
the dispensing device is a plunger assembly (16, 17) operatively attached to said motor (Col. 2, ¶ 3; Fig. 1).
The Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination does not disclose: at least one circuit board; an on/off switch supported on said at least one circuit board; the battery pack electrically connected to said at least one circuit board circuit board; and, the particular type of motor.
Gardos teaches a product applicator comprising: at least one circuit board (123); an on/off switch ([0034]-[0035]) supported on said at least one circuit board (PG. 3, [0026], Ln. 15-20); and, wherein the at least one power source is a battery pack electrically connected to said at least one circuit board circuit board ([0027]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively file: to modify Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination to provide an on/off switch like taught by Gardos for reasons including to provide the switch as a safety mechanism to prevent inadvertent driving of the plunger by accidentally hitting the trigger alone; to further modify the aforementioned Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos combination with the teaching from Gardos of a circuit board, and wherein an on/off switch and a battery are electrically connected to the circuit board for reasons including to simplify and consolidate the wiring into a small form and allow quick replacement of the power source.
In regards to the limitation requiring the motor to be a “stepper motor”, Beebe teaches a product applicator comprising a stepper motor (404) driving a dispensing device (414; Col. 12, ¶ 3). In view of the silence in the aforementioned Bayat-Peters-Gardos combination regarding the type of motor, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application as effectively filed to provide the motor of the aforementioned Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Beebe, i.e. as a “stepper” motor.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130020350 to Gardos
As per claim 9, the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination discloses the claimed invention except for an aiming light. Gardos teaches a product applicator comprising an aiming light (119). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination with an aiming light like taught by Gardos for reasons including to illuminate darkness.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10894272 to Clemens et al.
As per claims 6-8, the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination discloses the claimed invention except for the cartridge comprising an RFID tag ([0049]) that allows for the cartridge to be identified using devices capable of reading RFIDs.
Clemens teaches a product applicator comprising cartridge (Fig. 5) attached to an applicator (Col. 5, ¶ 7) and the cartridge comprising a RFID tag (94; Fig. Fig. 5) that sends an RFID signal that is readable by a RFID antenna (26 a-c) that is functionally attached to said applicator (Col. 12, ¶ 2-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Clemens to provide an RFID tag on the cartridge and an RFID antennae functionally attached to the applicator of the Bayat-Peters combination for identifying the cartridge received in the applicator of the Bayat-Peters combination.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art.
As per claim 18, the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one circuit board electrically connecting the trigger and load/unload switch and the dispensing force to the at least one power source. In regards to those limitation regarding the circuit board, Applicant failed to properly traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the office action dated 01/15/26 and therefore the following is now considered admitted prior art (see MPEP § 2144.03(C)): it is old and well known to provide a circuit board for connecting all electrical actuating switches and electrically driven components to a battery and it therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination such that the circuit board connects all electrical actuating switches and electrically driven components, including the trigger and load/unload switch to the battery for reasons including to simplify and consolidate the wiring into a small form and to allow quick replacement of the power source.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5871299 to Lai in view of US 5341958 to Bayat et al in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al.
As per claim 1, Lai discloses a product applicator (Fig. 1-6) comprising:
a housing (10, 11) having a first end and a second end (Fig. 1), and configured for releasably attaching a cartridge (110);
a dispensing force (25);
a dispensing device (13, 24) operatively attached to the dispensing force (Fig. 3), and functionally connected to the cartridge and configured to push or draw product from the cartridge onto a target (Col. 3, ¶ 2);
at least one power source (30); and,
a dispensing switch (18) operatively attached to the dispensing force, wherein the dispensing switch activates the dispensing force to dispense product (Col. 3, Ln. 5-7).
Lai does not disclose:
a load/unload switch configured to allow selection of a load position and an unload position and configured for pushing or pulling the dispensing device towards or away from the cartridge, wherein the load position is configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the gel bait cartridge and the unload position is configured to cause the dispensing device to retract; and, at least one data operator electrically connected to the power source, wherein the applicator is controlled at least in part by the at least one data operator.
In regards to the claimed load/unload switch, Bayat teaches a load/unload switch (37) configured to allow selection of a load position (F) and an unload position (R) and configured for pushing or pulling the dispensing device towards or away from the cartridge (switch 37 “provides for manually stopping and reversing the direction of the motor” Col. 2, Ln. 36-40; The switch 37, in combination with a trigger 33, is configured to allow selection of a “load position” and an “unload position” and for pushing or pulling the dispensing device towards or away from the cartridge), wherein the unload position is configured to cause the dispensing device to retract (Col. 2, Ln. 36-40). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Lai according to the aforementioned teachings from Bayat for reasons including to provide for motorized retraction of the dispensing device.
The Lai-Bayat combination does not disclose: the load position is configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the gel bait cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge; the load position is configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge; at least one data operator electrically connected to the power source, wherein the product applicator is controlled at least in part by the at least one data operator.
In regards to the limitation requiring the load position configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use a cartridge with the product applicator that is shorter than the full length of the tube holder, e.g. such that in a fully retracted state, the plunger is outside of the cartridge (as similarly depicted in Figure A, above - with regard to Bayat), for reasons including to dispense material from a cartridge manufactured in a length smaller than the full length of the tube holder.
Bayat in combination with the aforementioned modification still does not explicitly disclose “the load position configured to cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge”, however, it has been held that: 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Lai-Bayat combination in combination with a short cartridge as set forth above, discloses the claimed structure and is capable being used such that the load/unload switch 37 in the “F” position, in combination with the trigger 33, is configured to “cause the dispensing device to come into operable contact with the cartridge by advancing the dispensing device until the dispensing device contacts the cartridge”.
In regards to the limitation requiring “the load position configured to prevent back pressure from forming in the cartridge” Naughton teaches a product applicator comprising a auto-reverse circuit engaged upon released of a trigger to alleviate residual pressure within a cartridge (Col. 6, Ln. ¶ 5-6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Lai-Bayat combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Naughton for reasons including to alleviate residual pressure within the cartridge from a dispensing operation.
In regards to the limitation requiring “at least one data operator electrically connected to the power source, wherein the product applicator is controlled at least in part by the at least one data operator”, Peters teaches a product applicator comprising a first data operator comprising an App running on an external mobile device wherein the product applicator is controlled remotely by the App running on a mobile device ([0024]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Lai-Bayat combination to remotely communicate with an App on a mobile to device, like taught by Peters, to remotely control the applicator with the mobile device.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5871299 to Lai in view of US 5341958 to Bayat in view of US 9039557 to Naughton et al in view of US 20160169446 to Peters et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20130020350 to Gardos et al in view of US 10758935 to Beebe.
As per claim 5, Lai further discloses:
the housing further comprises a handle (101);
the at least one power source is a battery pack (Col. 2, ln. 29-31);
the dispensing device is a plunger assembly (13, 24) operatively attached to said motor (Fig. 2-3).
The Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination does not disclose: at least one circuit board; an on/off switch supported on said at least one circuit board; the battery pack electrically connected to said at least one circuit board circuit board; and, the particular type of motor.
Gardos teaches a product applicator comprising: at least one circuit board (123); an on/off switch ([0034]-[0035]) supported on said at least one circuit board (PG. 3, [0026], Ln. 15-20); and, wherein the at least one power source is a battery pack electrically connected to said at least one circuit board circuit board ([0027]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed: to modify the Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters combination to provide an on/off switch like taught by Gardos for reasons including to provide the switch as a safety mechanism to prevent inadvertent driving of the plunger by accidentally hitting the trigger alone; to further modify the aforementioned Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos combination with the teaching from Gardos of a circuit board, and wherein an on/off switch and a battery are electrically connected to the circuit board for reasons including to simplify and consolidate the wiring into a small form and allow quick replacement of the power source.
In regards to the limitation requiring the motor to be a “stepper motor”, Beebe teaches a product applicator comprising a stepper motor (404) driving a dispensing device (414; Col. 12, ¶ 3). In view of the silence in the aforementioned Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos combination regarding the type of motor, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application as effectively filed to provide the motor of the aforementioned Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Beebe, i.e. as a “stepper” motor.
As per claim 10, the aforementioned Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos-Beebe combination discloses the claimed invention except for the particular claimed plunger assembly. Gardos further teaches a plunger assembly including: a plunger (103, 104); a plunger nut (105) attached to plunger (Fig. 2-3); and, a lead screw (106) attached to said motor (Fig. 2-3) and attached to said plunger nut (Fig. 2-3); wherein said lead screw extends into said plunger (Fig. 2-3). It would have been obvious for It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to modify the plunger assembly of the aforementioned Lai-Bayat-Naughton-Peters-Gardos-Beebe combination to be the plunger assembly of Gardos since doing so would be an obvious substitution of one known motor-driven plunger assembly for another known motor-driven plunger assembly, with the expected results that the substituted motor-driven plunger assembly would function to drive a plunger.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 issued in the non-final rejection dated 01/15/26, the amendment field 06/15/26 overcomes all and the rejections are withdrawn. The claim rejections under 35 USC § 112 issued in this office action are necessitated by the amendment filed 06/15/26.
In regards to the drawing objections issued in the non-final rejection dated 01/15/26, the remarks filed 06/15/26 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that it is unclear to which of the drawing lacks hatching required by the office.
In response, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3) because hatching is missing in at least the following areas:
PNG
media_image2.png
442
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art issued in the non-final rejection dated 01/15/26, the amendment and remarks filed 06/15/26 have been fully considered but moot because they do not pertain to the grounds of rejection contained in this office action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 October 1, 2026
