DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-8 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,338,313 (‘313 hereinafter) in view of Hudson et al. (US 2006/0013709. Hudson hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions have the features an applicator comprising: a housing, a pump, an electric motor, a power source, a trigger, a wand, a nozzle coupled and a liquid conduit. ‘313 fails to disclose the container is coupled to the housing by the liquid conduit such that the container remains external to and separate from the housing.
However, Hudson teaches an applicator (1 in Figs. 5 and 6) comprising a housing (25), a pump (9), an electric motor (3), a power source (2), a trigger (5), a foldable wand (19), a nozzle (11), a liquid conduit (12 exterior of housing) having a proximal end in fluid communication with the pump and a distal end (after 13) that extends externally from the housing, the distal end is configured to (capable of) connect(ing) to a container (24), wherein the container remains external to and separate from the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaching of a container remains external to and separate from the housing, as taught by Hudson, to ‘313’s applicator, in order to provide adjustability to the spray system (Paragraph [0031] and Fig. 8).
‘313 and Hudson fail to disclose wherein the hinge conduit, the wand conduit, and the housing conduit form one continuous monolithic conduit. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hinge conduit, the wand conduit, and the housing conduit form in one continuous monolithic conduit, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 11,338,313
1
1
6
6
7
7
8
8
10
10
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,022,742 (‘742 hereinafter). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions have the features an applicator comprising: a housing, a pump, an electric motor, a power source, a trigger, a wand, a nozzle coupled and a liquid conduit and the container is coupled to the housing by the liquid conduit such that the container remains external to and separate from the housing.
‘742 fails to disclose wherein the hinge conduit, the wand conduit, and the housing conduit form one continuous monolithic conduit. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the hinge conduit, the wand conduit, and the housing conduit form in one continuous monolithic conduit, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Application Claims
U.S. Patent No. 10,022,742
1
1
6
6
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 11, 16, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hudson et al. (US 2006/0013709. Hudson hereafter) in view of Bochmann (US 3,901,449).
With respect to claim 11, Hudson discloses an applicator (1 in Figs. 5 and 6) comprising:
a housing (19 and 25), comprising:
a pump (9);
an electric motor (3) for driving the pump; and
a power source (2) for providing power to the electric motor, wherein the pump, electronic motor, and power source are enclosed within the housing;
a trigger (5) for controlling operation of the electric motor, wherein the trigger provides manual selective control over the pump such that when the trigger is depressed, the pump is actuated and when the trigger is released, the pump ceases operation;
a wand (tube upstream of 11 and downstream of 9) connected to the housing (indirectly) via a hinge (at pivot 21) that is configured to (capable of) allow the wand to be collapsed against the housing in a first position (downward position. Fig. 6) and extended away from the housing in a second position (upward position. Fig. 5), the hinge having a hinge conduit (hose 12 interior of 19 connected to 9) in fluid communication with the pump, and the wand further comprising a wand conduit (fluid passage formed by the tube upstream of 11 and downstream of 9) in fluid communication with the hinge conduit (via 9);
a nozzle (opening of 11) coupled to the wand for (capable of) discharging liquid from the applicator, wherein the nozzle is in fluid communication with the wand conduit and the pump; and
a liquid conduit (conduit in the main body 25 upstream of pump 9) having a proximal (left) end in fluid communication with the pump and a distal (right) end that extends externally from the housing, the distal end is configured to (capable of) connect to a container (24) that is external to and separate from the housing such that when the distal end of the liquid conduit is connected to the container, the container is coupled to the housing by the liquid conduit such that the container remains external to and separate from the housing.
Hudson fails to disclose a foldable wand pivotally connected to the housing, the foldable wand connected to the housing via a hinge that is configured to allow the wand to be collapsed against the housing in a first folded position and extended away from the housing in a second extended position, wherein at least a portion of the hinge is external to the housing and extends in a direction substantially parallel to the housing when the wand is in the first folded position, and the wand further comprising a wand conduit in fluid communication with the pump.
However, Bochmann teaches an applicator (10. Figs. 1-6) comprising: a housing (14) and a foldable wand (38) pivotally connected to the housing (at 42), the housing comprising: a pump (20); an electric motor (22) for driving the pump; and a power source (24) for providing power to the electric motor, wherein the pump, electronic motor, and power source are enclosed within the housing; a trigger (switch 30) in electronic communication with the power source and the electric motor; the foldable wand connected to the housing via a hinge (42) that is configured to allow the foldable wand to be collapsed against the housing in a first folded position (solid line of 38 in Fig. 1) and extended away from the housing in a second extended position (phantom line of 38 in Fig. 1), wherein at least a portion of the hinge is external to the housing and extends in a direction substantially parallel to the housing when the foldable wand is in the first folded position, and the foldable wand further comprising a wand conduit (in 38) in fluid communication with the pump; a nozzle (40) coupled to the foldable wand for discharging liquid from the applicator, wherein the nozzle is in fluid communication with the wand conduit; and a liquid conduit (56) having a proximal (upper) end in fluid communication with the pump and a distal (lower) end with a liquid conduit cap (70) that extends externally from the housing (into tank 12), the liquid conduit cap is configured to connect to a container (12) that is external to and separate from the housing such that when the distal end of the liquid conduit is connected to the container, the container is coupled to the housing by the liquid conduit such that the container remains external to and separate from the housing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a foldable wand, as taught by Bochmann, to Hudson’s applicator, in order to provide a convenient, portable (Col. 1, lines 12-14), adjustable sprayer (Fig. 1) with safety features (Abstract, lines 13-19).
With respect to claim 16, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Bochmann further teaches wherein the foldable wand is rotatable via the wand hinge about a 180-degree arc between the first folded position and the second extended position (Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 18, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Hudson further discloses the applicator further comprising: a liquid conduit cap (conduit 12 outside of the main body 25 upstream of 14), that is configured to (capable of) be connected to the liquid conduit, for (capable of) providing a sealing interface (claim 23 of Hudson) between the container and the liquid conduit to facilitate fluid communication between the container and the pump.
With respect to claim 20, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Hudson further discloses wherein the housing further comprises a liquid input (input opening of the pump); and wherein the pump is in fluid communication with the liquid conduit via the liquid input.
With respect to claim 21, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Hudson further discloses the applicator further comprising the container, wherein the container comprises a container opening (covered by the cap. Claim 23 of Hudson) configured to (capable of) sealingly engage with the liquid conduit cap and provide fluid communication of the pump with a liquid within the container via the liquid conduit.
With respect to claim 22, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Bochmann further teaches wherein at least a portion of the hinge is external to the housing and (the wand) extends in a direction substantially parallel to the housing when the foldable wand is in the first folded position.
With respect to claim 23, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s foldable wand, Hudson further discloses the applicator further comprising the container with a compartment therein, wherein the container comprises a container opening (covered by the cap. Claim 23 of Hudson) configured to (capable of) provide fluid communication between the liquid conduit and the compartment.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hudson in view of Bochmann and further in view of Gansebom (US 2008/0061167).
With respect to claim 12, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s wand, Hudson and Bochmann fail to disclose wherein the nozzle further comprises a first nozzle portion having a first nozzle conduit; and a second nozzle portion having several second nozzle conduits; wherein the second nozzle portion is rotatable relative to the first nozzle portion and wherein one or more of the several second nozzle conduits align with the first nozzle conduit depending upon the position of the second nozzle portion relative to the first nozzle portion.
However Gansebom teaches a washer wand having a nozzle selector, wherein the nozzle further comprises a first nozzle portion having a first nozzle conduit (62); and a second nozzle portion have several second nozzle conduits (42a-42f); wherein the second nozzle portion is rotatable relative to the first nozzle portion and wherein one or more of the several second nozzle conduits align with the first nozzle conduit depending upon the position of the second nozzle portion relative to the first nozzle portion (paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaching of a nozzle selector, as taught by Gansebom, to Hudson’s nozzle in order to provide a changeable spray pattern to the applicator (Abstract, line 2).
With respect to claim 13, Hudson’s applicator modified by Bochmann’s wand and Gansebom’s nozzle selector, Gansebom further discloses wherein a configuration of the several second nozzle conduits creates a variety of liquid spray patterns depending upon the position of the second nozzle portion (Fig. 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the Applicant argues that amendments to claim 1 rendering the previous rejection moot. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. See revised nonstatutory double patenting rejection elaborated above.
With respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not then reasonably seek to further modify Hudson to include the pivotable wand of Bochmann. Such a modification would add needless complexity and/or result in the sprayer of Hudson being unfit for its intended purpose.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As carefully elaborated in the rejections above, Hudson disclose the claimed invention except for a foldable wand pivotally connected to the housing, the foldable wand connected to the housing via a hinge that is configured to allow the wand to be collapsed against the housing in a first folded position and extended away from the housing in a second extended position, wherein at least a portion of the hinge is external to the housing and extends in a direction substantially parallel to the housing when the wand is in the first folded position, and the wand further comprising a wand conduit in fluid communication with the pump. Bochmann’s foldable wand is added to Hudson’s applicator, in order to provide a convenient, portable (Col. 1, lines 12-14), adjustable sprayer (Fig. 1) with safety features (Abstract, lines 13-19).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights