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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The multiple IDS dated: 10/21/2022, 10/24/2022, 10/25/2022, 10/26/2022, 11/30/2022, 11/13/2023 and 5/9/2024 have been considered. See PTO-1449.
It is noted that applicant did not particularly point out the references germane to the claims of the current application from the multiple IDS filed: 10/21/2022, 10/24/2022, 10/25/2022, 10/26/2022, 11/30/2022, 11/13/2023 and 5/9/2024. Further, it is noted that the documents submitted in the multiple IDS of: 10/21/2022, 10/24/2022, 10/25/2022, 10/26/2022, 11/30/2022, 11/13/2023 and 5/9/2024 appear to be presented with an abundance of caution in connection with ongoing litigations and in connection with applicant's related applications, that the documents were not reviewed in detail in connection with the herein claimed invention.
Furthermore, regarding the multiple IDS filed it is desirable to avoid the submission of long list of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents, which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aft 'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
An applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real-world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [ 220 USPQ 289 ] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). (Emphasis in original). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver PopcornCo. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del.1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D.FI. 1972).
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: feedback-control device in claim 31.
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.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16, 17, 19-22 and 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (JP 2017176962 A) in view of Yoshimoto et al. (JP H06147875 A). All citations to Kikuchi et al. unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 16, Kikuchi et al. show a spray gun (Figs. 1-3) comprising at least one first air outlet duct assembly (21A) and at least one second air outlet duct assembly (25), wherein at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow, and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one first air outlet duct assembly and at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow, and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one second air outlet duct assembly are controllable in a mutually independent manner (paragraphs 0027 & 0033), wherein the spray gun has at least one third air outlet duct assembly (27), and wherein at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one third air outlet duct assembly is controllable independently of at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one first air outlet duct assembly and independently of at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0032), wherein the spray gun has at least one device for entering, detecting, adjusting, and/or displaying a parameter of at least one fluid flowing through the spray gun (paragraph 0027).
Kikiuchi et al. does not teach a display of the at least one device is visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun.
However, Yoshimoto et al. disclose a spray gun (Fig. 1, 4) with at least one device (6) visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display of Kikuchi et al. visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun as taught by Yoshimoto et al. to provide confirmation to a user for the required information (Yoshimoto – abstract).
Re claim 17, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose the at least one first air outlet duct assembly is configured such that a spray medium is atomized by air guided by the at least one first air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0028), wherein the at least one second air outlet duct assembly is configured such that a shape of a spray jet is changed by air guided by the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0029), and wherein the at least one third air outlet duct assembly is configured such that an atomized spray medium is moved away from the spray gun by air guided by the at least one third air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0032).
Re claim 19, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the spray gun has a material nozzle (22) having a material outlet opening configured for delivering material to be sprayed, and a material outlet axis (central axis) along which the material to be sprayed flows out, and wherein the spray gun is configured such that air for atomizing a spray medium upon exiting the at least one first air outlet duct assembly (21A) impacts the material to be sprayed and exiting the material nozzle in a manner substantially parallel to the material outlet axis or obliquely, wherein air for shaping a spray jet, upon exiting the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (25), impacts atomized material obliquely, and wherein air configured for transporting the atomized material in a direction of an object to be coated with the atomized material upon exiting the at least one third air outlet duct assembly (27) impacts the atomized material in a manner substantially parallel to the material outlet axis.
Re claim 20, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose wherein controlling of at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one first air outlet duct assembly is accomplished by a first control device disposed in at least one of the first air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0027) and in an air distributor region, wherein controlling of at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one second air outlet duct assembly is accomplished by a second control device disposed in at least one of the second air outlet duct assembly (paragraph 0027) and the air distributor region, and wherein controlling of at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one third air outlet duct assembly is accomplished by a third control device disposed in at least one of the third air outlet duct assembly and in the air distributor region (paragraph 0032).
Re claim 21, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the at least one first air outlet duct assembly opens into at least one first air outlet opening (20), wherein the at least one second air outlet duct assembly opens into at least one second air outlet opening (24), and wherein the at least one third air outlet duct assembly opens into at least one third air outlet opening (26).
Re claim 22, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the spray gun has a main body (18A) having a head region (18B), wherein the head region has at least one first air outlet opening (20), at least one second air outlet opening (24) and at least one third air outlet opening (26).
Re claim 24, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the spray gun has at least one air connector (paragraphs 0027 & 0032), at least one air inlet duct assembly (12), and at least one air distributor region (18), wherein the at least one air inlet duct assembly (12) extends from the at least one air connector to the at least one air distributor region (18), wherein the at least one first air outlet duct assembly (21A) extends from the at least one air distributor region (18) to at least one first air outlet opening (20), wherein the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (25) extends from the at least one air distributor region (18) to at least one second air outlet opening (24), wherein the at least one third air outlet duct assembly (27) extends from the at least one air distributor region (18) to at least one third air outlet opening (26), and wherein the at least one first air outlet duct assembly (21A), the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (25) and the at least one third air outlet duct assembly (27) are mutually separated in spatial terms (Fig. 3).
Re claim 25, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose wherein the at least one parameter is at least one of pressure, temperature, moisture, volumetric flow, viscosity and flow rate (paragraph 0027).
Re claim 26, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose the spray gun has at least one separate first control device (paragraph 0027) for controlling at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one first air outlet duct assembly (21A), at least one separate second control device (paragraph 0027) for controlling at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one second air outlet duct assembly (25), and at least one separate third control device (paragraph 0032) for controlling at least one of the pressure, the volumetric flow, and the flow rate of the air flowing through the at least one third air outlet duct assembly (27).
Re claim 27, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose wherein at least two of the first, second, and third control devices are configured as a module (Fig. 1).
Re claim 28, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose the spray gun has at least one air chamber proceeding from which the at least one first air outlet duct assembly, the at least one second air outlet duct assembly and the at least one third air outlet duct assembly extend (paragraph 0027).
Re claim 29, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose the spray gun has at least one air chamber control (34; paragraph 0027) for controlling the air pressure prevalent in an air chamber within the spray gun.
Re claim 30, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the first air outlet duct assembly opens into a first air outlet opening (20) of a substantially annular design, wherein the second air outlet duct assembly opens into a second air outlet opening (24) of a substantially annular design, and wherein the third air outlet duct assembly opens into a third air outlet opening (26) of a substantially annular design.
Re claim 31, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose at least one feedback-control device (paragraph 0027) configured for feedback-controlling air pressure prevalent in an air chamber within the spray gun.
Claims 18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (JP 2017176962 A) in view of Yoshimoto et al. (JP H06147875 A) and further in view of Shih (US Pub No 2009/0026289 A1).
Re claim 18, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. show the spray gun has a material nozzle having a material outlet opening (22) configured for delivering material to be sprayed, and an air cap having a central opening (around 19), wherein an outer wall of the material nozzle (22), conjointly with a region of the air cap that delimits the central opening (around 19) of the air cap, forms an annular gap (20), and wherein the air cap on at least two mutually opposite sides of the central opening (around 19), next to the central opening, has in each case at least one control opening (24), wherein a spray medium is atomized by air flowing from the annular gap (20), wherein a shape of a spray jet is changed by air flowing from the third outlet (26), and wherein an atomized spray medium is moved away from the spray gun by air flowing from the control openings (24).
Kikuchi et al. does not teach two horns each having at least one horn air opening.
However, Shih shows outlet openings (Fig. 5, 43) designed as horn air openings incorporated in two horns (42) on an air cap (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one of the symmetrical air outlets of Kikuchi et al. designed as horn air openings incorporated in two horns as taught by Shih to further enable adjustment of the spray shape and the area of coverage (Shih – paragraph 0013).
Re claim 23, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Yoshimoto et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention including the spray gun has at least one nozzle assembly having at least one air nozzle, wherein the at least one air nozzle has at least one first outlet opening (20) configured as a central opening in an air cap of the at least one air nozzle, at least one second air outlet (24) on the air cap of the at least one air nozzle and at least one third air outlet opening (26) configured as a control opening in the air cap.
Kikuchi et al. does not teach at least one second air outlet opening configured as a horn air opening incorporated in horns on the air cap of the at least one air nozzle.
However, Shih shows outlet openings (Fig. 5, 43) configured as horn air openings incorporated in horns (42) on an air cap (40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second air outlet of Kikuchi et al. designed as horn air openings incorporated in horns as taught by Shih to further enable adjustment of the spray shape and the area of coverage (Shih – paragraph 0013).
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (JP 2017176962 A) in view of Noma et al. (US Pat No 4,738,806) and further in view of Gmeilbauer (DE 19525611 A1). All citations to Kikuchi et al. unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 32, Kikuchi et al. disclose a spray gun comprising:
at least one first air outlet duct assembly wherein at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow, and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one first air outlet duct assembly is controllable (paragraph 0027);
at least one second air outlet duct assembly wherein at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow, and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one second air outlet duct assembly is controllable (paragraph 0027);
at least one third air outlet duct assembly wherein at least one of a pressure, a volumetric flow, and a flow rate of air flowing through the at least one third air outlet duct assembly is controllable (paragraph 0032);
a material quantity control device (30).
Kikuchi et al. does not teach a first rotary control button arranged on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun, a second rotary control button on the exterior surface of the body of the spray gun and a third rotary control button on the exterior surface of the body of the spray gun, a material quantity rotary control button disposed on the spray gun or an air micrometer controllable with an air micrometer rotary control button disposed on the spray gun.
However, Noma et al. shows a spraying assembly (Fig. 2) with controls (3) mounted to an exterior surface (4) of the body of the assembly and several rotary control buttons (55a-55d).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the various control devices in Kikuchi et al. include rotary control buttons as shown in Noma et al. to provide a user with a way to physically vary the value or amount of change in the various control devices.
Further, Gmeilbauer shows an air micrometer controllable with an air micrometer rotary control button (Fig. 1, 7) disposed on the spray gun (1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motivation to modify the control unit in Kikuchi et al. with the air micrometer in Gmeilbauer to provide a user with a way to physically vary the value or amount of change in the control unit.
Re claim 33, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Noma et al. and Gmeilbauer disclose the at least one first air outlet duct assembly is configured to atomize a spray medium by air guided therein (paragraph 0028), the at least one second air outlet duct assembly is configured to change a shape of a spray jet by air guided therein (paragraph 0029), and the at least one third air outlet duct assembly is configured to move atomized spray medium away from the spray gun by air guided therein (paragraph 0032).
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi et al. (JP 2017176962 A) in view of Noma et al. (US Pat No 4,738,806) in view of Gmeilbauer (DE 19525611 A1) and further in view of Yoshimoto et al. (JP H06147875 A). All citations to Kikuchi et al. unless specified otherwise.
Re claim 34, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Noma et al. and Gmeilbauer disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but do not teach at least one device configured for displaying at least one parameter of at least one fluid flowing through the spray gun, and wherein a display of the at least one device is visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun.
However, Yoshimoto et al. disclose a spray gun (Fig. 1, 4) with at least one device (6) configured for displaying at least one parameter of at least one fluid flowing through the spray gun, and wherein a display of the at least one device is visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun (paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the display of Kikuchi et al. visible to a user on an exterior surface of a body of the spray gun as taught by Yoshimoto et al. to provide confirmation to a user for the required information (Yoshimoto – abstract).
Re claim 35, Kikuchi et al. as modified by Noma et al., Gmeilbauer and Yoshimoto et al. disclose wherein the at least one parameter is at least one of pressure, temperature, moisture, volumetric flow, viscosity and flow rate (paragraph 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752