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
Amendment filed 8/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled.
Pending claims 1 and 5 are addressed below.
Previous Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1 (Fig. 1, 17-25) in the reply filed 4/15/2024 was previously acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaeger (DE 102009023370).
Regarding claim 1, Jaeger discloses a pressure washing surface cleaner or general pressure washer spray gun (fig. 2) comprising:
a spray gun handle portion (see annotation, fig. 2);
a trigger (19, 21) constructed and arranged to transition between an off position (fig. 1) and an on position (trigger position shown in fig. 2); and
a trigger lock (41) coupled to the spray gun handle portion and operable to engage the trigger (19, 21) when the trigger is in the on position (fig. 2) and the trigger lock is moved to a locked position (locked via 59 engaged with rear corner of 41; as long as the trigger 19/21 remains in the positioned shown in fig. 2, trigger lock is in the locked position), wherein the trigger lock is operable to disengage the trigger when the trigger lock is moved to an unlocked position (when portion 21 is released and allowed rotation, the nose 39 forces retainer 41 against the biasing spring 45, which allow 59 to disengage from the retainer 41; see figs. 2)
wherein the trigger lock (41) includes a rotational hinge (43) at a first end (lower end where 43 is provided) of the of the trigger lock and coupled to the spray gun handle portion (coupled at 43),
wherein a trigger engagement portion (upper end of 41 where 41 engages 59) of the trigger lock is disposed at a second end (upper end of 41 where 41 engages 59 as shown in fig. 2) of the trigger lock opposite (at upper point engaging 59 extending upward at away from hinge 43) the rotational hinge, and
PNG
media_image1.png
404
605
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the trigger engagement portion extends into a space formed by the spray handle portion and containing the trigger (see annotation below).
PNG
media_image2.png
695
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (DE 102009023370) in view of Grimm (US1190230).
Regarding claim 5, Jaeger discloses pressure washing surface cleaner or general pressure washer spray gun (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a spray gun trigger (19, 21) engageable with a spring-loaded catch (35) disposed on the spray gun when the trigger is engaged to a position beyond the spring-loaded catch (position shown in fig. 2, when part of recess 59 is beyond the rear corner of 41); and
a spring (45) biasing the spring-loaded catch;
wherein the spring-loaded catch includes a rotational hinge (43) at a first end (lower end) of the spring- loaded catch.
Jaeger teaches the spring loading (via spring 45) provides sufficient force for the catch to hold the trigger in place (see fig. 2).
Jaeger does not teach the spring-loaded catch is coupled to a safety release, wherein when the safety release pulls on the spring-loaded catch, the force of the pull from the safety release causes the spring-loaded catch to change position and release the spray gun trigger causing the spray gun to deactivate; wherein the safety release is disposed at a second end of the spring-loaded catch opposite the rotational hinge; and wherein the spring in the spring-loaded catch is disposed between the rotational hinge and the safety release such that the force of the pull of the safety release to release the spring-loaded catch is toward an exterior away from the spray gun.
Grimm discloses a comparable locking configuration having a spring-loaded catch (K) is coupled to a safety release (O), wherein when the safety release pulls on the spring-loaded catch (fig. 4: dashed line),
the force of the pull from the safety release causes the spring-loaded catch (K) to change position (backward movement) and release/withdraw the catch/bolt K;
wherein the safety release (finger-piece portion of O) is disposed at a second end (outer end opposite hinge P) of the spring-loaded catch opposite the rotational hinge (P); and wherein the spring (N) in the spring-loaded catch is disposed between the rotational hinge (P) and the safety release (finger-piece portion of O) such that the force of the pull of the safety release to release the spring-loaded catch (withdrawing the bolt K) is toward an exterior away from lock housing and away from the spring-loaded catch.
PNG
media_image3.png
553
805
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jaeger to incorporate the teachings of Grimm to add a release mechanism, the spring-loaded catch is coupled to the release mechanism, wherein when the safety release pulls on the spring-loaded catch, the force of the pull from the safety release causes the spring-loaded catch to change position and release the spray gun trigger causing the spray gun to deactivate; wherein the safety release is disposed at a second end of the spring-loaded catch opposite the rotational hinge; and wherein the spring in the spring-loaded catch is disposed between the rotational hinge and the safety release such that the force of the pull of the safety release to release the spring-loaded catch is toward an exterior away from the spray gun. Jaeger as modified in view of Grimm would include a finger piece that allow retracting the catch corner engaging recess 59 of Jaeger against the force of spring 45 to release the locked position of the trigger.
PNG
media_image4.png
404
739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Utilizing alternative ways to release a lock is commonly known in the various field applications and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to incorporate the finger piece in the manner taught by Grimm to the spring-loaded catch of Jaeger. Doing so would provide for an alternative and more direct way to unlock the trigger, in case lever 21 of Jaeger is stuck.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks page 4: applicant argues that Jaeger does not teach “the trigger lock includes a rotational hinge at a first end…and coupled to the spray gun handle portion,…a trigger engagement portion of the trigger lock is disposed at a second end of the trigger lock opposite the rotational hinge…the trigger engagement portion extends into a space formed by the spray handle portion and containing the trigger”.
This is found not persuasive. The added claim limitations have been addressed. See annotated figures above under the rejection of claim 1.
Remarks page 4-5: Jaeger in view of Tanaka does not teach the amended claim 5.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5 have been considered but are moot in light of the new ground of rejection above via Jaeger in view of new reference Grimm.
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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752