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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the claims, filed on 02/27/26, are accepted and do not introduce new matter.
Previous Drawing objections are overcome by amendment to the claims.
Previous 112(b) rejections are of claims 22, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are overcome by amendment. However, 112(b) rejections of claims 23, 24, and 25 are maintained, see Response to Arguments below.
Claims 18, 19, 22-35 are pending; claims 1-17 and 20-21 are cancelled; claims 32-34 were previously withdrawn; claim 35 is new; claims 18, 19, 22-31 and 35 are examiner hereafter.
Claim Interpretation
Wording “and/or” and “or” is used throughout the claims. This is alternative language, which renders the claimed limitations involved as optional. As such, the prior art does not need to teach all of the limitations involved in order to anticipate the claim language; it only needs to teach one of these limitations.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one device for determining air pressure present in the at least one air chamber” in claims 18 and 35. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “for determining air pressure present in the at least one air chamber”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses the device for determining air pressure as measuring devices, in particular sensors, such as, for example, pressure measuring devices, in particular pressure sensors. The specification also discloses the device being a device “for computing”, which implies a circuit, logic, processor or controller. Examiner will interpret the device in view of the specification, or equivalent thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one device for detecting air pressure” in claims 18 and 27. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “for detecting air pressure”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses the device for detecting air pressure as a pressure sensor, an absolute pressure sensor, as a differential pressure sensor or as a relative pressure sensor, piezoresistive pressure sensors, piezoelectric pressure sensors, capacitive pressure sensors or inductive pressure sensors. Examiner will interpret the device in view of the specification, or equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for controlling and/or feedback controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure” in claims 24, 26, 31 and 35. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “controlling and/or feedback controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification discloses the device for controlling and/or feedback controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure as a button. Examiner will interpret it as such and equivalent thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one device for entering a target value and/or minimum value and/or a maximum value for the air pressure prevalent in the air chamber” in claims 25 and 35. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “for entering a target value and/or minimum value and/or a maximum value for the air pressure”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification discloses the device for entering and/or adjusting air pressure as a keyboard, a touch display, a rotary button, an array of buttons, or a selector lever. Examiner will interpret the device in view of the specification, or equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one device for emitting a signal” in claims 26, 31 and 35. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “for emitting a signal”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification discloses the device for emitting a signal as a radio, satellite, Bluetooth, WLAN, ZigBee, NFC, Wibree, WiMAX, LoRaWAN and/or IrDA. Examiner will interpret the device in view of the specification, or equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one device for displaying air pressure” in claims 26, 30, 31 and 35. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “for displaying air pressure”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses the device for displaying as an electronic display, a screen or a display, an LCD or OLED display, or a mechanical, or electromechanical display. Examiner will interpret the device in view of the specification, or equivalent thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a pressure measuring device” in claim 28. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “measur[ing] air pressure”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification discloses the pressure measuring device as a pressure sensor. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a spray gun and/or to a type or dimension of a component” in claim 23 and 29. This limitation meets the three prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “device”; 2) it is modified by functional language “detecting an item of information”; and 3) it is not modified by any structural limitations in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification discloses the device for detecting an item of information as a barcode scanner, QR code scanner, or RFID scanner. Examiner will interpret it as such, or equivalent thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18, 19 and 22-31 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.
Claim 18 discloses: “an air outlet opening” of the air chamber and “an air outlet” of the air duct. It is unclear if these are the same features or not. Based on disclosure and drawings, it appears that air only exits out of air outlet openings. Therefore, it is unclear what the “air outlet” is. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret these as the same features. Clarification is required.
Claims 19 and 22-31 are indefinite for depending on claim 18.
Claim 19 discloses: “at least one air chamber”. However, an air chamber is already disclosed in independent claim 18. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the air chamber of claim 19 is the same as the one of claim 18, or if they are a separate feature.
Claim 23 discloses: “at least one device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a type and/or to a dimension of the component disposed in the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type”. It is unclear what “a device of this type” entitles. This claim reads as a device for detecting… disposed in the spray gun… connect to a device of this type. It is not readily understood what the device for detecting an item is connected to. It appears that the device for detecting is connected to “a device of this type”, which does not make sense. This renders the claim indefinite. In other words, the claim discloses two “devices”, wherein a “device of this type” is indefinite. Type of what? Is the device referring to a type of component or is the device referring to a device for detecting a type of component? This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite and should be amended.
Claim 24 discloses: “at least one device for feedback-controlling and/or delimiting the air pressure prevalent in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type”. It is unclear what “a device of this type” entitles. This claim reads as a device for controlling/delimiting… connect to a device of this type. It is not readily understood what the device for controlling/delimiting is connected to. It appears that the device for controlling/delimiting is connected to “a device of this type”, which does not make sense. This renders the claim indefinite. In other words, the type of device is not known. That is, “this type” lacks antecedent basis. If the “device” in the last line of the claim is referring to the device for feedback controlling/ delimiting air pressure of the second line, the last line should read: connectable to said device.
Claim 25 discloses: “at least one device for entering a target value and/or a minimum value and/or a maximum value for the air pressure prevalent in the air chamber during operation of the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type”. It is unclear what “a device of this type” entitles. This claim reads as a device for entering a value… connect to a device of this type. It is not readily understood what the device for entering a value is connected to. It appears that the device for entering a value is connected to “a device of this type”, which does not make sense. This renders the claim indefinite. In other words, the type of device is not known. That is, “this type” lacks antecedent basis. If the “device” in the last line of the claim is referring to the device entering a target value of air pressure of the second line, the last line should read: connectable to said device.
Claim 27 discloses: “at least one first device for detecting an air pressure”. However, independent claim 18 already discloses “at least one device for detecting an air pressure”. It is unclear if the device of claim 27 is the same as the device of claim 18 or if they are separate features. If they are the same feature, claim 27 is rendered double inclusion. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 27 discloses: “wherein at least one first device for detecting an air pressure is disposed in the region of the first outlet opening of the air nozzle”. However, independent claim 18 specifically states that the “at least one device for detecting an air pressure which is disposed outside the at least one air chamber”. Based on disclosure, the air nozzle is part of the air chamber. As such, if independent claim 18 requires the device for detecting to be outside the air chamber, it is unclear how it can be disposed in the region of the air nozzle. It appears claim 27 contradicts claim 18. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 18 24 26 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1). Note: all references made in parenthesis are referencing the copy of Johansson provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Johansson teaches a spray gun (1) having at least one material nozzle (shown below) for delivering a material to be sprayed (the material nozzle is connected to liquid source tank 2), at least one air nozzle (9) for delivering air (as disclosed in page 7, lines 7-11), at least one air chamber (shown below) which upstream is adjacent to at least one air outlet opening (shown below) of the at least one air nozzle, for supplying the at least one air nozzle with air (air travels from conduit 6a to the air chamber and then to the air outlet opening, as seen below), and at least one device for determining air pressure (defined by control unit 12) present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun (control unit 12 is in data communication with pressure sensor 11, which is connected upstream of the air chamber, thus the air pressure detected by sensor 11 is the same pressure present in the air chamber; wherein the control unit 12 determines air pressure by analyzing a signal sent by the pressure sensor 11, as disclosed in page 8, lines 1-21), wherein the spray gun further comprises at least one air duct (6a) for directing air from an air inlet (shown below) to an air outlet (shown below) and at least one device for detecting an air pressure (pressure sensor 11) which is disposed outside the at least one air chamber (as seen below, pressure sensor 11 is outside of the air chamber), wherein the device for determining the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun calculates the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber based on the air pressure value determined by the device for detecting an air pressure (the device for determining air pressure, i.e. control unit 12, calculates the air pressure in the air chamber based on a signal sent by the device for detecting air pressure, i.e. pressure sensor 11, as disclosed in Page 8, lines 1-21 – the pressure sensor 11 emits a signal that is processed and evaluated by the control unit, thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 24, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun has at least one device for feedback-controlling and/or delimiting the air pressure (device defined by control member 8a) prevalent in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun (8a regulates flow of air going into the air chamber, see page 7, lines 1-5) and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type (the device 8a wirelessly connected, as disclosed in Page 8, lines 1-5, also seen by dashed lines in Fig 1).
Regarding claim 26, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun has at least one device for emitting a signal (defined by device that connects the pressure sensor 11 wirelessly with control unit 12, disclosed in page 8, lines 1-5; in order to communicate wirelessly a wireless transmitter is disclosed) which is connected and/or connectable to the device for determining the air pressure (connected to device for determining air pressure, i.e. control unit 12, see Fig 1) present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun (see Fig 1), to a device for controlling and/or feedback-controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure, to a device for displaying an air pressure and/or to a data processing device (“or” language renders these limitations optional).
Regarding claim 28, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun further comprises said at least one air duct (6a) for directing air from an air inlet to the at least one air nozzle (as shown below) and a pressure measuring device (defined by 11 and 12), the pressure measuring device comprising: said at least one device for detecting an air pressure (pressure sensor 11), wherein the pressure measuring device is fastened or fastenable to the spray gun such that the pressure measuring device is connected to the at least one air duct (11 is connected to air duct 6a, see Fig 1), said device for determining the air pressure (control unit 12) present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun based on the air pressure value determined by the device for detecting an air pressure (as stated in rejection of claim 18 and disclosed in page 8, line 1-21 of Johansson).
Regarding claim 31, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 28, wherein the pressure measuring device has at least one device for emitting a signal (defined by device that connects the pressure sensor 11 wirelessly with control unit 12, disclosed in page 8, lines 1-5; in order to communicate wirelessly a wireless transmitter is disclosed) which is connected and/or connectable to a device for determining the air pressure (connected to device for determining air pressure, i.e. control unit 12, see Fig 1) present in the air chamber during operation of the spray gun (see Fig 1), to a device for controlling and/or feedback-controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure, to a device for displaying an air pressure and/or to a data processing device (“or” language renders these limitations optional).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view of Kwok (U.S. 4,501,394).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun further comprises an air cap (shown below). However, Johansson does not teach the air cap having a central opening, wherein the central opening conjointly with a front region of the at least one material nozzle forms an annular gap for delivering air for atomizing a material to be sprayed, and wherein at least one air chamber is formed by the at least one material nozzle and the air cap.
Kwok teaches a spray gun air cap (14) that includes a central opening (air passage 28), wherein the central opening conjointly with a front region of at least one material nozzle (front region of fluid nozzle 20) forms an annular gap (32) for delivering air for atomizing a material to be sprayed (as disclosed in col 3, lines 47-49: passage 28 is utilized for atomizing the fluid emitter by nozzle 20); and wherein at least one air chamber (defined upstream of air openings 31) is formed by the at least one material nozzle (20) and the air cap (14, as seen in Fig 2 and 4).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Kwok to provide a central passage for air to flow around the material nozzle in order to atomize the material, i.e. paint, as it leaves the material nozzle (as disclosed in col 3, lines 47-49 of Kwok).
Claims 22, 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view Cognon et al (U.S. 2019/0275544).
Regarding claim 22, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun has said at least one device for determining the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun (the gun has control unit 12 which determines air pressure in the air chamber during operation, as stated in rejection of claim 18; see also page 8, lines 1-21 of Johansson). However, Johansson does not teach the spay gun wherein at least one replaceable component including a replaceable material nozzle and/or a replaceable air nozzle, wherein the device for determining the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun is designed such that the determination of the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun is determined as a function of at least one parameter of the replaceable component and/or of at least one dimension of the replaceable component.
Cognon teaches a paint sprayer that uses replaceable nozzles (5) in order to change spraying characteristics (see Par 0017); wherein a device for determining the air pressure (base 2, which includes air pressure sensor 62) is designed such that the determination of air pressure present in an air chamber during operation of the spray gun (62 measures air pressure arriving at the sprayer 1, i.e. determines air pressure inside an air chamber inside the sprayer 1) is determined as a function of at least one parameter of the replaceable component and/or of at least one dimension of the replaceable component (as disclosed in Pars 0009-0013 and 0030, each replaceable nozzle has an identifier RFID tag, wherein the device identifies the replaceable components and conducts validity analysis of the configuration, which includes air pressure readings).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Cognon to provide replaceable components such as nozzles and means to determine air pressure based on the components in order to automate configuration management of the sprayer, which advantageously can be used to perform diagnostics and keep history of the sprayer and its components (as taught by Cognon in Par 0005 and throughout its disclosure).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18. However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein the spray gun has at least one replaceable component including at least one of a replaceable nozzle assembly, a replaceable material nozzle and/or a replaceable air nozzle, and at least one device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a type and/or to a dimension of the component disposed in the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type.
Cognon teaches a paint sprayer that uses replaceable components (nozzles 5) in order to change spraying characteristics (see Par 0017); and at least one device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a type (each component has an RFID tag 93, 94, 95, which identifies what type of component it is, see Pars 0025-0026) and/or to a dimension of the component disposed in the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type (the device communicates and is connected to a base 2 wirelessly via communication means 7, see Fig 1).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Cognon to provide replaceable components such as nozzles and means to identify the components in order to automate configuration management of the sprayer, which advantageously can be used to perform diagnostics and keep history of the sprayer and its components (as taught by Cognon in Par 0005 and throughout its disclosure).
Regarding claim 29, Johansson teach the spray gun of claim 28. However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein the pressure measuring device has a device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a spray gun, to a type and/or a dimension of a component disposed in the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to the item of information detecting device.
Cognon teaches a paint sprayer that uses replaceable components (nozzles 5) and at least one device for detecting an item of information pertaining to a type of component (each component has an RFID tag 93, 94, 95, which identifies what type of component it is, see Pars 0025-0026) and/or to a dimension of the component disposed in the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to the item of information detecting device (as best understood, the device for detecting item information communicates and is connected to a base 2 wirelessly via communication means 7, see Fig 1).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Cognon to provide replaceable components such as nozzles and means to identify the components in order to automate configuration management of the sprayer, which advantageously can be used to perform diagnostics and keep history of the sprayer and its components (as taught by Cognon in Par 0005 and throughout its disclosure).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view of Kloepfer et al (U.S. 2017/0225203).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18. However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein the spray gun has at least one device for entering a target value and/or a minimum value and/or a maximum value for the air pressure prevalent in the air chamber during operation of the spray gun and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type. Note: this claim is broad in scope as it does not specify what is done with the target value entered.
Kloepfer teaches a sprayer gun (26) that has a device for entering a target value for pressure (input unit 96, which as disclosed in Par 0106 and 0108 determines a desired pressure setting) prevalent in a chamber (inside the spray gun) and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type (96 is wirelessly connected to a device for controlling pressure, see Fig 8).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Kloepfer to include a device for inputting a target pressure in order to give the user the ability to change pressure setting at the spray gun. This is apparent in Par 0111 of Kloepfer. In combination, the device for entering the target value would be prevalent in the air chamber of Johansson.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view of Keim et al (U.S. 5,603,984).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 18, wherein the spray gun has at least one nozzle assembly (defined by front face of the spray gun) having the at least one air nozzle having an air cap (the front face of the spray gun has the air nozzle 9 and an air cap, shown below), wherein the air nozzle has at least one first outlet opening for exhausting atomization air and at least one second outlet opening for exhausting forming air (as seen in Fig 1, there are two outlets to air nozzle 9, each one having an outlet opening), and/or wherein at least one second device for detecting an air pressure is disposed in the region of the second outlet opening of the air nozzle (“or” language renders these limitations optional). However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein at least one first device for detecting an air pressure is disposed in the region of the first outlet opening of the air nozzle.
Keim teaches a sprayer comprising a device for detecting fluid pressure (pressure sensor 785) disposed in the region (780b) of an outlet opening of a nozzle (opening of nozzle assembly 780) (as seen in Fig 16, the pressure sensor 785 is disposed on a region 780b of an outlet of nozzle 780). Note: “region” is broad language, as it does not specify where exactly the device is placed in relation to the outlet openings; region merely implies proximity.
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Kiem to provide the pressure sensor in a region of an outlet opening of the air nozzle in order to acquire more accurate pressure readings since the sensor would be placed towards the downstream end of the spray gun, i.e. pressure of fluid as right before it is expelled. This would give a measured value that could be used to better proportion air vs. paint ratio in the device of Johansson (as taught by Keim in col 24, lines 59-67).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view of Matsumoto (U.S. 2005/0127201).
Regarding claim 30, Johansson teaches the spray gun of claim 28. However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein the pressure measuring device has at least one display device for displaying a pressure value.
Matsumoto teaches a spray gun wherein a pressure measuring device (unit 10) has at least one display device (27) for displaying a pressure value (as seen in Fig 2a).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto to provide a display in order to visually inform the user of an air pressure value in an easy-to-view manner (as disclosed in Par 0001 of Matsumoto).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al (WO 03/086654 A1) in view of Kloepfer et al (U.S. 2017/0225203) and Matsumoto (U.S. 2005/0127201).
Regarding claim 35, Johansson teaches a spray gun (1) having at least one material nozzle (shown below) for delivering a material to be sprayed(the material nozzle is connected to liquid source tank 2), at least one air nozzle (9) for delivering air (as disclosed in page 7, lines 7-11), at least one air chamber (shown below) which upstream is adjacent to at least one air outlet opening (shown below) of the at least one air nozzle, for supplying the at least one air nozzle with air (air travels from conduit 6a to the air chamber and then to the air outlet opening, as seen below), and at least one device for determining the air pressure (defined by control unit 12) present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun (control unit 12 is in data communication with pressure sensor 11, which is connected upstream of the air chamber, thus the air pressure detected by sensor 11 is the same pressure present in the air chamber; wherein the control unit 12 determines air pressure by analyzing a signal sent by the pressure sensor 11, as disclosed in page 8, lines 1-21).
However, Johansson does not teach the spray gun wherein the spray gun has at least one device for entering at least one of (alternate language) a target value, minimum value, and a maximum value for the air pressure present in the air chamber during operation of the spray gun and/or wherein the spray gun is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device for entering at least one of the target value, the minimum value and the maximum value for the air pressure present in the air chamber during operation of the spray gun (“or” language renders these limitations optional); wherein the spray gun has at least one device for emitting at least one of an optical, acoustic and haptic signal, which is connected and/or connectable to the device for determining the air pressure present in the at least one air chamber during operation of the spray gun, to a device for controlling and/or feedback-controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure, to a device for displaying an air pressure and/or to a data processing device.
Kloepfer teaches a sprayer gun (26) that has a device for entering at least one of (alternate language) a target value, minimum value, and a maximum value for pressure (input unit 96, which as disclosed in Par 0106 and 0108 determines a target pressure setting) prevalent in a chamber (inside the spray gun) and/or is wirelessly and/or by wire connected and/or connectable to a device of this type (96 is wirelessly connected to a device for controlling pressure, see Fig 8).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Kloepfer to include a device for inputting a target pressure in order to give the user the ability to change pressure setting at the spray gun. This is apparent in Par 0111 of Kloepfer. In combination, the device for entering the target value would be prevalent in the air chamber of Johansson.
Matsumoto teaches a spray gun (see abstract) wherein the spray gun has at least one device for emitting at least one (alternate language) of an optical, acoustic and haptic signal (device 27 is a display device that emits an optical signal), which is connected and/or connectable to the device for determining the air pressure (27 is connected to pressure measuring unit 10), to a device for controlling and/or feedback-controlling and/or delimiting an air pressure, to a device for displaying an air pressure and/or to a data processing device (“or” language renders these limitations optional).
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 Johansson to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto to provide a display in order to visually inform the user of an air pressure value in an easy-to-view manner (as disclosed in Par 0001 of Matsumoto).
Annotated Figure of Johansson:
PNG
media_image1.png
453
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 with regards to 112(b) rejections of claims 23, 24, and 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 23 is not indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the “device of this type” is a device for detecting such information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim discloses two “devices”, wherein a “device of this type” is indefinite. The “type” is not defined. Based on arguments the device is the device for detecting such information. But this is not commensurate with claim language. The claim should read as such, not as “a device of this type”. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite and should be amended.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, Examiner has rewritten the 112(b) for these claims. They are no longer indefinite due to a rotary button (of claim 24) nor due to what is done with the target value (of claim 25).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 02/27/2026 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above.
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 JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
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.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights