DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 29 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 29 April 2026 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-2,4-5,10,12,16,18-19,21,26,33-34,37,40-41,43,45 and 56 are presently pending and being examined herein.
4. All rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “processor to increases” in lines 1-2 of page 3 should read --processor to increase--. Additionally, the recitation of “logic stored on the memory” on the last line of page 2 should be moved earlier to the listing of device components, for example after the recitation of “memory” in the 11th line of the claim, for clarity.
7. Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “for calculating apparent swipe velocity and increases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases and decreases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases” should read --for calculating an apparent swipe velocity, increasing the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases, and decreasing the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases--.
8. Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: “based on of the flow rate” in line 11 of page 5 should read --based on the flow rate--.
9. Claim 56 is objected to because of the following informalities: “one or more of the movement of the dispensing wand decrease; the distance from the end of the dispensing wand decrease or the acceleration of the dispensing wand decrease” should read --one or more of: the movement of the dispensing wand decreases; the distance from the end of the dispensing wand decreases; or the acceleration of the dispensing wand decreases--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
10. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12, 16, 18-19, 21, 26, 37, 40-41, 43, 45, and 56 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.
11. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the end of the dispensing wand" in the 17th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim has not established a specific position or end of the wand (which is understood to comprise at least two ends, and the specific position of the end becomes important for a distance measurement later in the claim).
12. Claims 2, 4-5, 10, 12, 16, 18-19, 21, 26, and 56 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
13. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the battery voltage" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as one or more batteries have been introduced and it is unclear if any battery or all batteries having low voltage would satisfy the control parameter to prevent the operation.
14. Regarding claim 12, the limitation "the distance measurement" in the third line has antecedent basis as a distance measured between a surface and the dispensing wand, which is unclear with regard to the complete phrase “the distance measurement from the dispensing wand to an object” whether the surface and the object are intended to be of the same morphological concept. Likewise, it is unclear whether or not “the edge of a surface” is referring to the same surface referenced in claim 1, as no definite edges or other structural boundaries have been defined for this surface.
15. Claim 37 recites the limitation "the dispenser" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear what constitutes the “dispenser” to be stopped from: the sprayer, the pump, the processor that drives the pump, or some other component.
Claim 37 further recites the limitation "the voltage" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no voltage has been introduced and no specific part of the one or more batteries or other circuitry has been assigned this voltage.
16. Claim 40 recites the limitation "the distance reading" in the 14th line of page 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no measurable distance has been established and it is unclear what distance would have been measured in the context of the claim as recited.
17. Claims 41, 43, and 45 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 40.
18. Claim 45 recites the limitation "the battery voltage" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as one or more batteries have been introduced and it is unclear if any battery or all batteries having low voltage would satisfy the control parameter to prevent the operation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
20. Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 26, 40, 41, 45, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 20220193287 A1) in view of Charpie (US 20090179081 A1) and Giacalone et al (US 20190388923 A1).
21. Regarding claim 1, Wilson discloses a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
memory (storage machine may include memory devices, par 0146);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for causing the portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer to turn on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
one or more feedback sensors (data sensors, pars 0007, 0070-0075, and 0094), wherein the one or more feedback sensors provide data indicative of one or more of: movement of the dispensing wand (sensors can capture movement data, pars 0094; movement of the sprayer, par 0125), distance from the end of the dispensing wand to a surface (provide distance information to ensure that the sprayer is within range for the object or surface, pars 0096-0097), fluid flow, acceleration of the dispensing wand (on-board accelerometer to sense the sprayer has been dropped, par 0125); and
The limitation wherein the fluid flow is greater than zero describes an operational condition of the device analyzed per MPEP 2114(II), but Examiner emphasizes that Wilson does teach that fluid flow is greater than zero during operation (par 0105).
Wilson further discloses logic stored on the memory (storage machine holds machine readable instructions executable by a logic machine, par 0146); wherein the logic stored on the memory causes the processor to at least change the flow rate by setting spraying function to ON or OFF (par 0061). Wilson teaches that an abundance of sensor data including distance to a surface is made available to the processor for displaying to a user or master controller (pars 0003, 0044, 0144) to ensure that sanitizing is conducted properly (par 0104). However, Wilson does not specifically teach the logic that increases the fluid flow as it passes out of the dispensing wand if one or more of: the movement of the dispensing wand increases, the distance from the end of the dispensing wand increases, or the acceleration of the dispensing wand.
Charpie teaches a spray gun with analogous on-board distance ranging (pars 0004 and 0010, FIGS. 1 and 4) wherein a drive is configured via a programmable logic controller (par 0027) to control a fluid valve to adjust flow rate in response to feedback from the sensors (Abstract, par 0010), including to increase fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance increase (par 0010) and decrease fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance decrease (par 0010). This control based on distance sensor feedback is used to advantageously improve uniformity of the spray coating and reduce waste (par 0012). When applied to the base device of Wilson, this flow control based on sensor feedback constitutes an improvement as the advantages of disinfectant spray uniformity and waste reduction would predictably be realized in the same manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include logic within the memory of Wilson that increases the fluid flow as it passes out of the dispensing wand if the distance from the end of the dispensing wand increases as taught by Charpie, because this control function would predictably improve uniformity of disinfectant application in the same manner and involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Although Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101), Wilson’s teaching of a generic pump without detailed illustration does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Giacalone teaches an analogous battery powered portable sprayer (Abstract, par 0003, FIGS. 1A-1B) wherein a pump such as a centrifugal or positive displacement pump draws low-pressure cleaning fluid through an inlet from a water source such as an on-board reservoir (par 0018) and through a pump outlet leading to the spray gun (pars 0018-0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the pump in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson with an inlet and outlet in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle, respectively, as taught by Giacalone, because this arrangement would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle and involves simple substitution of one known element (pump) for another to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
22. Regarding claim 2, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises a flow sensor (flow sensor, Wilson par 0101).
23. Regarding claim 5, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises an image sensor (camera captures picture of area being sanitized, Wilson pars 0137-0139).
24. Regarding claim 10, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic on the memory for at least receiving voltage data (system can sense battery capacity and voltage via embedded sensors, Wilson par 0094). The combination does not teach the specific logic for preventing operation of the self-adjusting sprayer if the battery voltage drops below a selected threshold.
Giacolone further teaches a power management system that similarly includes a circuit or module for measuring a charge of the battery modules (par 0040) disabling the battery modules in favor of a plug-in only configuration in response to the charge in the battery module dropping below a threshold level (par 0040), whereas when power is not received from the electrical plug the system will default to a battery-only mode (par 0040), this logic for managing batteries providing the advantageous ability to increase the power output of the pump motor or increasing the run-time of battery modules before the charge is depleted (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the voltage sensor with the processor of Wilson to prevent operation of the sprayer if the voltage drops below a threshold as taught by Giacolone, because this prevention of low-voltage operation would predictably maintain the same power output of the pump motor in the same manner (Giacolone par 0032) and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
25. Regarding claim 12, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory for stopping the fluid flow out of the dispensing wand (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, Wilson par 0061). The combination does not teach that this would occur if the distance to an object increases indicating the end of the dispensing wand passed the edge of a surface.
Charpie further teaches that the controller may decrease fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance decrease, a poor or worsening spray angle, a poor or worsening surface e.g., multiple angles, corner, etc.(par 0010) and that the valve automatically closes when the spray gun is pointed away from the object (par 0010) to reduce waste (par 0012), which includes the described scenario when the gun moves from directed toward an object to directed past the edge of an object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the control logic of Wilson to stop the fluid flow through the nozzle when the distance measurement increases indicating the end of the dispensing wand passes the edge of a surface as taught by Charpie, because this shutoff capability would predictably reduce fluid waste in a similar manner and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
26. Regarding claim 16, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 but does not teach logic stored on the memory for calculating apparent swipe velocity that increases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases and decreases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity decreases.
Charpie further teaches that the process carried out by the programmable logic controller (par 0020) monitors stroke velocity based on a change in sensed distance (par 0010) and may increase the liquid flow rate in response to a greater stroke velocity of the spray coating gun 12 relative to the target object 14 and decrease the liquid flow rate in response to a lesser stroke velocity of the spray coating gun 12 relative to the target object 14 (par 0014). This is taught as one of several control means to improve uniformity of the spray coating and reduce waste (par 0012).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the control logic of Wilson to calculate apparent swipe velocity then increases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity increases and decreases the fluid flow rate as the apparent swipe velocity decreases as taught by Charpie, because such flow adjustments based on swipe velocity would predictably provide the same improvement in disinfectant application uniformity and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
27. Regarding claim 18, Wilson as modified by Field teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory adjusting a fluid delivery rate between off and on settings (Wilson par 0061) and between multiple rates based on at least distance (Charpie par 0010). The limitations for dispensing sanitizer/disinfectant over a broad projection and for dispensing sanitizer/disinfectant on a targeted object describe an intended use of the apparatus and thus are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). However, Examiner notes that in the situation when the sprayer is a first distance from an object then increases to a second distance for a broader projection from the spray nozzle, the logic already incorporated from Charpie above dictates that the flow rate increases from a first delivery rate to a second delivery rate (Charpie par 0010), reading upon the claim.
28. Regarding claim 19, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising one or more indicators (indicator light, Wilson par 0101) providing feedback to a user (which will inform the operator of the condition, Wilson par 0101).
29. Regarding claim 21, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising a voltage sensor (system can sense battery capacity and voltage via embedded sensors, Wilson par 0094). The combination does not teach the specific sequence wherein if the voltage drops below a selected threshold, the processor prevents operation of the self-adjusting sprayer.
Giacolone further teaches a power management system that similarly includes a circuit or module for measuring a charge of the battery modules (par 0040) disabling the battery modules in favor of a plug-in only configuration in response to the charge in the battery module dropping below a threshold level (par 0040), whereas when power is not received from the electrical plug the system will default to a battery-only mode (par 0040), the management of batteries providing the advantageous ability to increase the power output of the pump motor or increasing the run-time of battery modules before the charge is depleted (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the voltage sensor with the processor of Wilson to prevent operation of the sprayer if the voltage drops below a threshold as taught by Giacolone, because this prevention of low-voltage operation would predictably maintain the same power output of the pump motor in the same manner (Giacolone par 0032) and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
30. Regarding claim 26, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising a sensor that senses a parameter indicative of the capacity of the battery (system can sense battery capacity and voltage via embedded sensors, Wilson par 0094). The combination does not teach the specific sequence wherein if the capacity of the battery drops below a selected threshold, the processor prevents operation of the self-adjusting sprayer.
Giacolone further teaches a power management system that similarly includes a circuit or module for measuring a charge of the battery modules by volts or amp-hours to output a percentage charge remaining/estimated remaining run time (pars 0040-0041) and disabling the battery modules in favor of a plug-in only configuration in response to the charge in the battery module dropping below a threshold level (par 0040), whereas when power is not received from the electrical plug the system will default to a battery-only mode (par 0040), the management of batteries providing the advantageous ability to increase the power output of the pump motor or increasing the run-time of battery modules before the charge is depleted (par 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the voltage sensor with the processor of Wilson to prevent operation of the sprayer if the voltage drops below a threshold as taught by Giacolone, because this prevention of low-voltage operation would predictably maintain the same power output of the pump motor in the same manner (Giacolone par 0032) and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
31. Regarding claim 40, Wilson teaches a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could…automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer…sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for turning the sprayer on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105), the dispensing wand having a dispensing wand inlet in fluid communication with the tank outlet (FIG. 1, line connecting wand 110 and tank 100);
and a distance sensor (distance ranging guide, Wilson pars 0096-0097);
wherein the distance sensor is in circuit communication with the processor (embedded sensors that capture and communicate using a suitable wireless or wired connection, par 0134, FIG. 5);
wherein the processor is in circuit communication with the motor controller (sprayer monitors the pump current, par 0144); and
wherein the processor provides input to the motor controller for controlling the speed of the motor that drives the pump (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, par 0061; pump current in milliamperes, par 0064).
The limitation wherein the speed of the motor that drives the pump is greater than zero describes an operational condition, i.e., an intended use of the device, which imparts no patentable weight. See MPEP 2114(II). Examiner notes that Wilson does teach that the pump motor would have a monitorable voltage and amperage and cause sanitizer to flow, thus operating with a speed greater than zero (par 0105).
Wilson does not teach that the processor would manipulate the speed of the motor to drive the pump at an increased speed or at a decreased speed depending on the distance reading received from the distance sensor.
Charpie teaches a spray gun with analogous on-board distance ranging (pars 0004 and 0010, FIGS. 1 and 4) wherein a drive is configured via a programmable logic controller (par 0027) to control a fluid valve to adjust flow rate in response to feedback from the sensors (Abstract, par 0010), including to increase fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance increase (par 0010) and decrease fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance decrease (par 0010). This control based on distance sensor feedback is used to advantageously improve uniformity of the spray coating and reduce waste (par 0012). When applied to the base device of Wilson, this flow control based on sensor feedback constitutes an improvement as the advantages of disinfectant spray uniformity and waste reduction would predictably be realized in the same manner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include logic within the memory of Wilson that increases the fluid flow as it passes out of the dispensing wand if the distance from the end of the dispensing wand increases and decreases the fluid flow as it passes out of the dispensing wand if the distance from the end of the dispensing wand decreases as taught by Charpie, because this control function would predictably improve uniformity of disinfectant application in the same manner and involves the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Although Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101), Wilson’s teaching of a generic pump without detailed illustration does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Giacalone teaches an analogous battery powered portable sprayer (Abstract, par 0003, FIGS. 1A-1B) wherein a pump such as a centrifugal or positive displacement pump draws low-pressure cleaning fluid through an inlet from a water source such as an on-board reservoir (par 0018) and through a pump outlet leading to the spray gun (pars 0018-0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the pump in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson with an inlet and outlet in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle, respectively, as taught by Giacalone, because this arrangement would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle and involves simple substitution of one known element (pump) for another to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
32. Regarding claim 41, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 40 wherein the distance sensor is located on the dispensing wand (spray wand 110 has laser diode 165, Wilson par 0108, Wilson FIG. 1; laser aiming guide can also have a distance ranging guide, Wilson par 0096).
33. Regarding claim 45, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 40 further comprising circuitry (embedded sensors to capture information and transfer the information either through a wireless or wired communication method, Wilson par 0125) for capturing data about battery capacity and voltage (Wilson par 0134), even issuing a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). The low battery level is not specifically taught as 2 volts, but this is a result-effective variable i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, where the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Wilson does not teach that the circuitry would be used for stopping the dispenser when the voltage reaches this low battery level of 2 volts.
Giacolone further teaches a power management system that similarly includes a circuit or module for measuring a charge of the battery modules (par 0040) disabling the battery modules in favor of a plug-in only configuration in response to the charge in the battery module dropping below a threshold level (par 0040), which is exemplified as 60 volts but that voltage is likewise a result effective variable that can be optimized by a skilled artisan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the voltage sensor with the processor of Wilson to prevent operation of the sprayer if the voltage drops below a threshold of 2 volts as taught by Giacolone, because this prevention of low-voltage operation would predictably maintain the same power output of the pump motor in the same manner (Giacolone par 0032), the low voltage threshold of 2 volts readily achieved through routine experimentation, the modification involving combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
34. Regarding claim 56, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 further comprising logic stored on the memory that causes the processor to decrease the fluid flow as it passes out of the dispensing wand if … the distance from the end of the dispensing wand decrease (decrease fluid flow in response to sensor 13 feedback indicative of a distance decrease, Charpie par 0010).
35. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 20220193287 A1), Charpie (US 20090179081 A1), and Giacalone et al (US 20190388923 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 20170129605 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable self-adjusting sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer of claim 1 wherein the one or more feedback sensors comprises a distance ranging guide, described as an LED or laser diode equipped to inform the operator when they are the correct distance from the target surface (Wilson pars 0096-0097). The combination does not specifically teach a time-of-flight sensor.
Wu teaches an analogous spraying system (Abstract) wherein range sensing or relative distance information may be provided by ultrasonic sensors, lidar, time-of-flight or depth cameras (par 0043), showing that these are analogous sensors for distance ranging.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the distance sensor of modified Wilson for a time-of-flight sensor as taught by Wu, because this time-of-flight sensor would predictably provide distance ranging information in a similar manner and involves simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
36. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson and Field as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Karren et al (US 20190263691 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 40 further comprising a flow sensor (flow sensor, Wilson par 0101) located in the flow conduit connecting the pump/tank to the wand (FIG. 1, sensor 150). The combination does not teach that the flow sensor would be located in the dispensing wand.
Karren teaches a system for cleaning materials and surfaces (par 0002; used to sanitize a surface, par 0156) having a wand configured to spray fluids (par 0026) that includes one or more sensors that determine how much fluid has been applied (pars 0221-0222), citing the purpose of these sensors to automatically increase, decrease, start, stop, and/or otherwise control the amount of fluid that is sprayed (pars 0221-0222).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to locate the flow sensor in the wand as taught by Karren within the sprayer of modified Wilson because this would predictably provide the same feedback information/flow control capability as the original location in the conduit upstream of the wand with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
37. Claims 33, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al (US 20220193287 A1) in view of Giacalone et al (US 20190388923 A1).
38. Regarding claim 33, Wilson discloses a hand-held (handheld sprayer, par 0005) portable (handheld version would be portable, par 0005, FIG. 1) self-adjusting (sprayer could…automatically adjust the parameters, par 0124) sanitizer or disinfectant sprayer (sprayer…sprays sanitizer particles, par 0123) comprising:
a tank (tank 131, FIG. 1) for holding sanitizer or disinfectant (fills tank with disinfectant, par 0114);
one or more batteries (batteries 101, par 0109);
a motor (pump motor, par 0105);
a motor controller (control system of FIG. 7 can alter pump current set point, par 0144);
a pump (pump, par 0105);
a processor (integral microprocessor, par 0059);
a trigger (trigger 155, FIG. 1, pars 0105-0106) for turning the sprayer on and off (operator begins spraying by pressing the wand trigger, par 0052; trigger can be mechanical release i.e. would turn off when not depressed, par 0106);
a dispensing wand (“spray wand”, par 0026; FIG. 1, wand 110, par 0105), the dispensing wand having a dispensing wand inlet in fluid communication with the tank outlet (FIG. 1, line connecting wand 110 and tank 100);
and a flow sensor (dispensing sensor 150 equipped to monitor and measure the flow of sanitizer, par 0105, FIG. 1);
wherein the flow sensor is in circuit communication with the processor (embedded sensors that capture and communicate using a suitable wireless or wired connection, par 0134, FIG. 5);
wherein the processor is in circuit communication with the motor controller (sprayer monitors the pump current, par 0144); and
wherein the processor provides input to the motor controller (Set/Get spraying function to ON or OFF, par 0061; pump current in milliamperes, par 0064) and that pump operates based on the flow rate received from the flow sensor (monitor the flow rate and pump current in real time and can determine between a priming sequence and a real time nozzle clog, par 0101).
Although Wilson teaches that the pump is the driving force to move disinfecting fluid (par 0105) along the fluid flow path between the tank and the nozzle (par 0101), Wilson’s teaching of a generic pump without detailed illustration does not specifically teach the pump having a pump inlet in fluid communication with an interior of the tank or the pump having a pump outlet.
Giacalone teaches an analogous battery powered portable sprayer (Abstract, par 0003, FIGS. 1A-1B) wherein a pump such as a centrifugal or positive displacement pump draws low-pressure cleaning fluid through an inlet from a water source such as an on-board reservoir (par 0018) and through a pump outlet leading to the spray gun (pars 0018-0019).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the pump in the sanitizer sprayer of Wilson with an inlet and outlet in fluid communication with the tank and the nozzle, respectively, as taught by Giacalone, because this arrangement would predictably provide the ability to pump disinfecting fluid to the nozzle and involves simple substitution of one known element (pump) for another to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Wilson also does not teach that the signal indicative of the flow rate is used by the processor for controlling the speed of the motor that drives the pump nor wherein the speed of the motor that drives the pump is increased or decreased based on a flow rate that is greater than zero.
Giacalone teaches that the unloading sensor may be an analogous flow sensor that provides a signal indicating a flow rate to the nozzle (par 0028) and that the controller is may slow the speed or stop the electric motor in response to reduced fluid flow (par 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the processor of Wilson to control the speed of the motor that drives the pump to increase or decrease based on flow rate as taught by Giacalone, because this control capability would predictably enable the data available from the myriad sensors (listed in Wilson par 0094) to automatically control the flow from the sprayer and involves combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
39. Regarding claim 34, Wilson as modified by Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 33 wherein the flow sensor is an in-line flow sensor (flow measurement means can be a flow meter, Wilson par 0105; Wilson FIG. 1, flow sensor 150 located in the line connecting to dispensing wand).
40. Regarding claim 37, Wilson as modified by Giacalone teaches the hand-held portable sanitizer/disinfectant sprayer of claim 33 further comprising circuitry (wired communication, Wilson par 0125) for capturing data about battery capacity and voltage (Wilson par 0134), even issuing a low battery level alert (Wilson par 0125). The low battery level is not specifically taught as 2 volts, but this is a result-effective variable i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, where the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). Wilson teaches that the circuitry is capable of setting the spraying function to off (Wilson par 0061) but does not teach that the circuitry would be used for stopping the dispenser when the voltage reaches this low battery level.
Giacolone further teaches a power management system that similarly includes a circuit or module for measuring a charge of the battery modules (par 0040) disabling the battery modules in favor of a plug-in only configuration in response to the charge in the battery module dropping below a threshold level (par 0040), which is exemplified as 60 volts but that voltage is likewise a result effective variable that can be optimized by a skilled artisan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further configure the voltage sensor with the processor of Wilson to prevent operation of the sprayer if the voltage drops below a threshold of 2 volts as taught by Giacolone, because this prevention of low-voltage operation would predictably maintain the same power output of the pump motor in the same manner (Giacolone par 0032), the low voltage threshold of 2 volts readily achieved through routine experimentation, the modification involving combining prior art elements i.e., control configurations according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
41. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 19 March 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5,10,12,16,18-19,21,26,32-34,37,40-41 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
42. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the limitation “wherein the fluid flow is greater than zero” does not constitute an intended use of the device, Remarks page 8, Examiner reminds Applicant that apparatus claims cover what a device is, structurally, not what a device does. MPEP 2114(II) establishes a standard that is applied across the Office to apparatus claims, and a simple drafting effort to recite e.g., that the pump is configured to move fluid at a fluid flow rate is suitable to imply that a fluid flow rate is non-zero and can increase or decrease. Unless Applicant seeks patent protection for the device to cover only when fluid is flowing from the wand, in which case the argued interpretation would be appropriate.
43. Regarding Applicant’s arguments against independent claims 1 and 40, see Remarks pages 9-10, Examiner agrees that the distance sensor of Wilson gives feedback to the operator, but that the device itself does not adjust the dispensing property of fluid flow according to the sensor data (though it is undeniable that “sprayer 100 could receive the parameters from the mobile application 215 and automatically adjust the parameters” of Wilson par 0124 refers to a self-adjusting sprayer). However, Examiner asserts in the new grounds of rejection above that the teachings of Charpie and Giacalone fully address the deficiencies of Wilson, because a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the automatic flow control logic based on sensed distance to a surface in Charpie as an improvement that can be readily applied to the sprayer of Wilson, as Wilson teaches the importance of distance control (pars 0096-0097) and already comes equipped with the necessary sensors (pars 0071-0075 and 0096).
44. Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the rejections of other claims, see Remarks pages 10-11, Examiner clarifies that the sensors of Wilson, not those of other teaching references, are relied upon to indicate and control the fluid flow property. The flow sensor and image sensor need not themselves control the fluid flow rate, as the processor of Wilson as modified by Charpie and Giacalone would control this based on the distance information achieved by one or more of the claimed sensors (or based on a flow rate in claims 33, 34, 37). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Arguments against the alleged deficiencies of Field, Olsen, Alpert, Childress, Karren, and Markesbery are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on the references for any teaching or matter specifically challenged.
Conclusion
45. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights