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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's previous election of SPECIES H – Figure 18 is noted.
Additionally, it is noted that Applicant is claiming a non-elected embodiment in Claim 18. The device described in Fig 18 only has one paint pump. The communication circuitry described in Fig 18 is for control communication with other fluid pump systems – and does not describe the paint pump communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that this matter was previously resolved in the office action mailed on 06/21/2024.
Furthermore, the language at the end of claim 18 which states: a paint hose providing a flow path between the paint outlet of the first paint pump, the paint outlet of the second paint pump, and a handheld spray applicator configured to spray the pressurized paint – is clearly directed to the non-elected embodiment of Fig 16.
Accordingly, claim 18 and its dependent claims 20-23, and 25-26 are directed to a non-elected embodiment and are therefore withdrawn.
Also, it is noted that Applicant is claiming a non-elected embodiment in Claim 30. The device described in Fig 18 only has one paint pump. The communication circuitry described in Fig 18 is for control communication with other fluid pump systems – and does not describe the paint pump communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Paragraphs 0081, 0086, 0087, and 0088 each describe communicating with other fluid pump systems – but do not describe communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that this matter was previously resolved in the office action mailed on 06/21/2024.
Accordingly, claim 30 and its dependent claims 31-34 are directed to a non-elected embodiment and are withdrawn.
Claims 18, 20-23, 25-26, and 30-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected SPECIES, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 10/15/2025, have made the claim objections and the §112(a) rejections moot. The objections and the §112(a) rejections of 07/16/2025 have been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janecek US 2021/0301801 in view of Kuhn USPN 6244228.
Regarding Claim 1: Janecek US 2021/0301801 discloses the limitations: A paint pump system (the paint pump system is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising:
an electric motor (=12, see Fig 13/14, ¶0182) configured to provide a unidirectional rotational output (as known in the art of motors, it is the direction that the current is applied to the motor which determines which direction the motor rotates, thus there is no structural difference between the motor 12 of Janecek and a unidirectional motor since the structure of the rotor and the stator of the motor would be the same; additionally if the motor 12 of Janecek is only ever rotated in a single direction then it would be a unidirectional motor; thus Janeck would be capable of (i.e. configured to) provide a unidirectional rotational output as claimed);
a screw drive (= drive mechanism 314, ¶0187, Fig 13/Fig 14, the screw drive is defined by the sum of its parts) coupled to the electric motor (nut 382 of the drive mechanism is rotated by the rotor shaft 380 of the motor, ¶0187), the screw drive configured to convert the unidirectional rotational output of the electric motor into linear motion (¶0187-¶0188, since nut 382 can be rotated by motor 12 in a single direction to cause the screw 384 to move in a direction – the screw drive 314 which includes the nut 382 and screw 384 is able to convert the rotational output into linear motion), wherein the screw drive comprises:
a nut (= drive nut 382, ¶0187-¶0188) configured to be rotatably driven by the unidirectional rotational output of the electric motor (¶0187-¶0188, nut 382 can be rotated by motor 12 in a single direction); and
a screw (=screw 384, ¶0187-¶0188) configured to move linearly along the nut, by the rotation of the nut (mechanism 314 incudes rotational element 382, reciprocating element 384, and rolling elements 386 (¶0187), 382 is rotated by the rotor such that 384 reciprocates during operation ¶0187-¶0188; however rotation of nut 382 in a single direction would only cause screw 384 to move linearly in a single direction);
a paint pump (19, ¶0044-¶0045, ¶00182, ¶0056, ¶0050-¶0053, the paint pump is defined by the sum of its parts) comprising a piston (316, ¶00182, ¶0056, ¶0050-¶0053) disposed within a cylinder (19a,94, ¶00182, ¶0056, ¶0050-¶0054), wherein the piston is reciprocally driven by reciprocation of the screw drive (¶0182-¶0183, ¶0187-¶0188, ¶0050, ¶0189) to draw paint (¶0002-¶0003, ¶0044-¶0045, ¶0053, ¶0189) into the cylinder (the pump 19 inherently draws paint into the cylinder with the piston as claimed given that the pump is a reciprocating piston pump), pressurize the paint (¶0189; since the device is described as a paint pump ¶0044-¶0045 it would inherently pressurize the paint), and output a flow of pressurized paint through a paint outlet (paint outlet = outlet of cylinder 16/94 (see Fig 4) which communicates with supply line/hose 4, ¶0182, ¶0032, ¶0044-¶0045, ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0127, ¶0189; given that ¶0189 states that the pump can generate pressure of 3000 PSI – the reciprocating pump 19 would inherently output a flow of pressurized paint through the paint outlet as claimed); and
a hose (4 – Fig 4, ¶0182, ¶0032, ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0127,¶0236) having a first end (= left end in Fig 4) configured to receive the flow of pressurized paint (see Fig 4) and a second end (= right end in Fig 4) coupled to a handheld paint applicator (i.e. coupled to a spray gun as described in ¶0189, the spay gun is the same as apparatus 5 used with drive system 10 of Fig 2/Fig 4, ¶0182, ¶0189, ¶0032, ¶0053-¶0055, ¶0127). Janecek US 2021/0301801 specifically states at ¶0188 that reciprocation of piston 316 is caused by changing the direction of rotation of the motor, accordingly Janecek US 2021/0301801 is silent regarding the limitations: the unidirectional output is converted into reciprocating motion; and a self-reversing screw configured to move linearly and reciprocally along the nut by rotation of the nut. The prior art of Kuhn USPN 6244228 which is directed to a rotary-to-linear converter (e.g. a screw drive formed with elements 2,3) for use with a valve actuation device (abstract) with a rotating driver 2, like the rotary-to linear drive mechanism 314 with the rotating nut 382 of Janecek US 2021/0301801, is noted.
However, Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations:
a unidirectional rotational output (= rotational output delivered to element 2 to rotate element 2 continuously in a first radial direction about the longitudinal axis in Fig 1a, Column 5 Line 50-59);
a screw drive (Column 5 Line 50-Column 6 Line 14; the screw drive = 2,5,7a,7b,10a,10b,3), the screw drive configured to convert the unidirectional rotational output of the electric motor into reciprocating motion (the rotary to linear converter (i.e. the screw drive) converts the continuous rotation in the first radial direction to linear reciprocating motion – Column 5 Line 50-66), wherein the screw drive comprises:
a nut (= rotating driver 2) configured to be rotatably driven by the unidirectional rotational output (Column 5 Line 50-66, driver 2 is inherently rotated by the source of rotation delivered to driver 2); and
a self-reversing screw (= reciprocating rod 3) configured to move reciprocally and linearly along the nut, by the rotation of the nut (Column 5 Line 50-66).
Hence it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the screw drive of Janecek so as to convert the unidirectional rotational output of the electric motor into reciprocating motion using a nut configured to be rotatably driven by the unidirectional output of the electric motor, and a self-reversing screw configured to move reciprocally and linearly along the nut by rotation of the nut, in light of the teachings of Kuhn (Kuhn – Column 5 Line 50-66), in order to provide an improved rotational-to-linear that can travel a greater distance per revolution.
Regarding Claim 2: Janecek US 2021/0301801 as modified by Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations: wherein the electric motor (Janecek – 12), the screw drive (Janecek – 314 | Kuhn – 2,5,7a,7b,10a,10b,3), and the piston (Janecek – 316) are inline (Janecek - ¶0182 the claimed features are coaxial as seen in Fig 13-14; additionally, as seen in Fig 1a of Kuhn the rotating nut 2 and screw 3 are each aligned along a common axis, accordingly in the combination of prior art the claimed features would still be in line).
Regarding Claim 5: Janecek US 2021/0301801 as modified by Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations: wherein the self-reversing screw (Janecek – 384 | Kuhn – 3) is configured to be coupled to the piston (in the combination of prior art the screw 3 of Kuhn would be coupled to the piston 316 of Janecek in the same manner shown in Fig 13 of Janecek showing the screw 384 is coupled to the piston 316).
Regarding Claim 6: Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations: wherein the self-reversing screw includes a double helix raceway (i.e. raceway with helical threads 3a,3b, Column 5 Line 50-Column 6 Line 14) comprising a first thread 3a and a second thread 3b, and wherein the first thread is of a different handedness than the second thread (as seen in Fig 1a, the first thread 3a travels down and to the right whereas the second thread 358 travels up and to the right, thus the first and second threads have different handedness (i.e. thread patterns) as claimed).
Regarding Claim 7: Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations: wherein the nut (2, Fig 1a) comprises:
an aperture (= bore 6 in Fig 1a) formed along a length of the nut (Fig 1a) configured to receive the double helix raceway (as seen in Fig 1a);
a first portion (= ball located in guide means 5 at the top of Fig 1a) positioned on the first thread of the double helix raceway (as seen in Fig 1a); and
a second portion (= ball located in guide means 5 at the bottom of Fig 1a) positioned on the second thread of the double helix raceway (as seen in Fig 1a), wherein the second portion is opposite the first portion (as seen in Fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 8: Janecek US 2021/0301801 as modified by Kuhn USPN 6244228 does disclose the limitations: wherein the self-reversing screw is configured to reciprocally drive the piston linearly (in the combination of prior art the reciprocating screw 3 of Kuhn would be fixed to connector 388 and piston 316 of Janecek in the same manner that screw 384 is shown as being connected to connector 388 in Fig 13 of Janecek – thus the combination of prior art would reciprocally drive the piston linearly as claimed).
Regarding Claim 9: Janecek US 2021/0301801 does disclose the limitations: a controller (15, Fig 17, ¶0206) configured to control rotation of the electric motor (15, Fig 17, ¶0206, controller 15 controls power to stator 20 to control rotation of rotor 22 - ¶0209).
Regarding Claim 29: Janecek US 2021/0301801 does disclose the limitations: wherein the paint pump system is configured to withstand the flow of pressurized paint at three thousand pounds per square inch (¶0189, since the paint pump ¶0044-¶0045 in Fig 13-14 can generate pressures in the range of 3000-5000 psi - ¶0189, the paint pump would be able to withstand pressures up to 3000 psi as claimed).
Examiner's Note: The Examiner respectfully requests of the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the entirety of the references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention.
It is noted, REFERENCES ARE RELEVANT AS PRIOR ART FOR ALL THEY CONTAIN. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments (see MPEP § 2123).
Additionally the origin of the drawing is immaterial. For instance, drawings in a design patent can anticipate or make obvious the claimed invention, as can drawings in utility patents. When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979). (See MPEP § 2125).
The Examiner has cited particular locations in the reference(s) as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claims, typically other passages and figures will apply as well.
Furthermore: with respect to the prior art and the determination of obviousness, it has been held that Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The "mere existence of differences (i.e. a gap) between the prior art and an invention DOES NOT ESTABLISH the inventions nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976). Rather, in determining obviousness the proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts. And factors other than the disclosures of the cited prior art may provide a basis for concluding that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to bridge the gap. (See MPEP § 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 9 ¶2-Page 13 ¶2: Applicant traverses the rejection of claim 1 using the prior art of Janecek in view of Kuhn.
--Arguments not persuasive. In response to applicants arguments (Page 10 ¶1-Page 12 ¶1) that Janecek provides no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to incorporate a unidirectional drive – such as the one taught by Kuhn.
It is noted that the claimed invention need not be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the applied references, taken as a whole, would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, the examiner notes that since the motor of Janecek is capable of rotating in a single direction it is able to provide unidirectional rotational output as claimed. Thus the only feature missing from the device of Janecek to address the screw drive as claimed is the self-reversing screw, which is taught by the art of Kuhn.
Also a PHOSITA when looking to replace the screw drive of Janecek with a different screw drive would look to the prior art of Kuhn since it has similar parts as those found in Janecek and has the additional benefit of not having to change the motor direction in order to reciprocate.
Additionally, applicant should note that the language of claim 1 Line 2 states: an electric motor configured to provide a unidirectional rotational output and claim 1 Line 3-5 states in part: the screw drive configured to convert the unidirectional rotational output of the electric motor into reciprocating motion. SINCE the electric motor of Janecek is capable of providing a unidirectional rotational output AND the combination of Janecek as modified by Kuhn is capable of converting unidirectional rotational output into reciprocating motion – without reversing the direction of the motor, the combination of prior art teaches the claimed device.
Furthermore, the examiner notes that the motor of Janecek is still able to reverse, it is just that in the combination of art, the motor does not have to be reversed in order to reciprocate the pump. Thus Applicants arguments (Page 11 ¶1-Page 12 ¶1) are not convincing.
Furthermore, in response to applicants arguments (Page 12 ¶2-Page 13 ¶2) that the teachings of Janecek and Kuhn directly conflict – the examiner disagrees. As explained above in the combination, the motor of Janecek is still able to reverse if desired, however it is not necessary to do so in order to reciprocate the pump. Thus Applicants arguments that the teachings of Janecek and Kuhn directly conflict based on the electric motor of Janecek are not convincing.
Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.--.
Page 13 ¶3-Page 14 ¶2: Applicant argues that the amended language of claim 18 which is directed to a first paint pump, a second paint pump, and a communication circuit, wherein the first paint pump is configured to communicate with the second paint pump via the communication circuit – is supported by at least Fig 18.
--Applicant is claiming a non-elected embodiment in Claim 18. The device described in Fig 18 only has one paint pump. The communication circuitry described in Fig 18 is for control communication with other fluid pump systems – and does not describe the paint pump communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that this matter was previously resolved in the office action mailed on 06/21/2024.
Furthermore, the language at the end of claim 18 which states: a paint hose providing a flow path between the paint outlet of the first paint pump, the paint outlet of the second paint pump, and a handheld spray applicator configured to spray the pressurized paint – is clearly directed to the non-elected embodiment of Fig 16.
Accordingly, claim 18 and dependent claims 20-23, and 25-26 are directed to a non-elected embodiment and are withdrawn.
Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.--.
Page 14 ¶3-Page 15 ¶2: Applicant argues that the language of claim 30 which requires two paint pumps is not taught by the prior art and is supported by Fig 18.
--Applicant is claiming a non-elected embodiment in Claim 30. The device described in Fig 18 only has one paint pump. The communication circuitry described in Fig 18 is for control communication with other fluid pump systems – and does not describe the paint pump communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Paragraphs 0081, 0086, 0087, and 0088 each describe communicating with other fluid pump systems – but do not describe communicating with a second paint pump as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that this matter was previously resolved in the office action mailed on 06/21/2024.
Accordingly, claim 30 and dependent claims 31-34 are directed to a non-elected embodiment and are withdrawn.
Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.--.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH S HERRMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-3291. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/JOSEPH S. HERRMANN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3746