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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-17, 20-39 and 42-45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, there is no support in the specification for the spray gun being disposable. Figure 12 and the description of figure 12 state “the disposable gun assembly”, but list only parts of the spray gun assembly that are disposable and not the actual spray gun. Paragraph 27 states that “the gun, can be easily replaced without incurring any significant expense,” but says nothing about it being disposable.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from are rejected base claim.
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 1, 3 and 5-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the last limitation claims a first set of individual ball valve. it is unclear of this is claiming two ball valves, or a single ball valve. Claim 3, then refers to a single ball valve. It is unclear if the ball valve of claim 3 is one of the ball valves of claim 1, both of them, or a different ball valve.
The remainder of the claims are rejected for depending from are rejected base claim.
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(s) 1, 3, 5, 14-16, 21, 22, 24-27, 33-38, 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (5,163,584) in view of Scarpa et al. (5,964,418)
Regarding claim 1, Huber et al shows a foam dispensing apparatus (fig 1) for dispensing a mixture of a resin component and an isocyanate component, said foam dispensing apparatus comprising: a) a heated hose assembly (fig 1, 26, 7, 30) comprising: i. a first hose (26) consisting of a resin line for carrying the resin component from a first pressurized tank; ii. a second hose (27) consisting of an isocyanate line for carrying the isocyanate component from a second pressurized tank (col 4, lines 6-10); and b) a disposable spray gun (22, gun 22 can be thrown away) wherein a spray head comprises a mix tube (114, 28) and a nozzle (169) for dispensing the resin component and the isocyanate component from the spray gun, and wherein the first hose and the second hose are each connected to the first pressurized tank and the second pressurized tank, respectively, via a first set of individual valves (178, 180).
But fails to disclose wherein the first hose and the second hose are wrapped with a heat tape, and the valves are ball valves.
Scarpa et al. shows a nozzle where the supply lines are hose are wrapped with a heat tape (col 6, lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to wrap the supply lines in heat tape to keep them at a specific temperature as taught by Scarpa et al (col 6, lines 44-45).
The above combination fails to disclose that said valves are ball valves.
The examiner notes that ball vales are well known in the art and are very common in spray guns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use a ball vale for the valves 178 and 180, in order to control the flow of fluid with a quick quarter-turn operation, tight and reliable shut-off, minimal pressure drop when fully open.
Regarding claim 3, further comprising an actuator (the handle of 178, 180) coupled to said ball valve for moving said valve between open and closed positions.
Regarding claim 5, further comprising at least one control valve (88) controlling a flow rate of at least one of the resin component and the isocyanate component.
Regarding claim 14, further comprising an air assist mechanism (190).
Regarding claim 16, wherein the air assist mechanism enables mixing of the resin component and the isocyanate component (fig 2 through hose 44).
Regarding claims 21 and 43, wherein a design of the first hose, the second hose, and the spray gun enables efficient vertical spraying ( the design is efficient compared to other less efficient designs).
Regarding claim 22, wherein said resin line and said isocyanate line are pressurized to between 80 and 300 pounds per square inch (col 7, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 24, Huber et al. shows a foam dispensing system (fig 1) for dispensing a mixture of a resin component and an isocyanate component, said foam dispensing system comprising: a source of resin component (A); a source of isocyanate component (B); a first hose (26) connected to the source of the resin component and consisting of a resin line for carrying the resin component; a second hose (27) connected to the source of the isocyanate component and consisting of an isocyanate line for carrying the isocyanate component; a disposable spray gun (22, gun 22 can be thrown away) comprising a spray head (42) and a mix tube (114, 28); a nozzle (196) for dispensing the resin component and the isocyanate component from the spray gun; at least one valve (88 or 178, 180) connected to said resin line and said isocyanate line, and moveable between an open position allowing flow through said resin line and said isocyanate line and a closed position preventing flow through said resin line and said isocyanate line, wherein the first hose and second hose are configured for heating (col 8, lines 5-6), wherein the at least one valve comprises a first set of individual valves (178, 180) that connect the first hose and the second hose to the source of the resin component and the source of the isocyanate component, respectfully.
But fails to disclose wherein the first hose and the second hose are wrapped with a heat tape, and the valves are ball valves.
Scarpa et al. shows a nozzle where the supply lines are hose are wrapped with a heat tape (col 6, lines 44-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to wrap the supply lines in heat tape to keep them at a specific temperature as taught by Scarpa et al (col 6, lines 44-45).
The above combination fails to disclose that said valves are ball valves.
The examiner notes that ball vales are well known in the art and are very common in spray guns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use a ball vale for the valves 178 and 180, in order to control the flow of fluid with a quick quarter-turn operation, tight and reliable shut-off, minimal pressure drop when fully open.
Regarding claim 25, further comprising an actuator (knob of 178, 180) coupled to said at least one valves for moving said at least one valve between said open position and closed position.
Regarding claim 26, further comprising a source of compressed gas (32) in communication with the source of the of resin component and the source of the isocyanate component for pressurizing the resin component and the isocyanate component to move the resin component and the isocyanate component through the resin line and the isocyanate line, respectively (fig 1).
Regarding claim 27, wherein said source of compressed gas pressurizes the source of the resin component and the source of the isocyanate component to between 100 and 500 pounds per square inch (col 7, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 33, Huber et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 24,
But fails to disclose wherein the first hose and the second hose lead to the spray gun through a second set of individual valves.
The examiner notes that ball vales are well known in the art and are very common in spray guns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to add additional ball valves at each end of the supply lines, as a backup valve and in order to make it easier to replace just the supply line and just the spray gun individually.
Regarding claim 34, wherein the resin component and the isocyanate component enter into the mix tube and become combined (fig 1, 3).
Regarding claim 35, wherein a combined mixture of the resin component and the isocyanate component results in a polyurethane which is then propelled out of the spray gun when a gun trigger (88) is set in motion.
Regarding claim 36, further comprising an air assist mechanism (190).
Regarding claims 15 and 37, wherein the air assist mechanism further comprises a valve (190).
But fails to disclose the valve is a ball valve.
The examiner notes that ball vales are well known in the art and are very common in spray guns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use a ball vale for the valve 190, in order to control the flow of fluid with a quick quarter-turn operation, tight and reliable shut-off, minimal pressure drop when fully open.
Regarding claim 38, wherein the air assist mechanism enables the mixing of the resin component and the isocyanate component (fig 2, 3).
Claim(s) 6-13 and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (5,163,584) as modified by Scarpa et al. (5,964,418) above, further in view of Kott et al. (2001/0030241).
Regarding claims 6 and 28, Huber et al. as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 24, but fails to show wherein the first hose and the second hose are wrapped in protective material.
However, Kott et al. teaches steel braded, Teflon lined hoses in a spray system [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use the steel braded, Teflon, lined hoses of Kott et al. in the system of Huber et al. as modified above, in order to have the hoses be more durable.
Regarding claims 6 and 28, the steel bradded part is the protective material.
Regarding claims 7 and 29, wherein the first hose and the second hose are individually wrapped or wrapped together to form a bundle.(the steel braiding is the individual wrapping for each hose)
Regarding claims 8 and 30, wherein the protective material is insulating material, heat resistant material, or heat generating material.(steel is all three of these)
Regarding claims 9 and 31, wherein the first hose and the second hose are lined with heat resistant material (Teflon [0042]).
Regarding claims 10 and 32, wherein the heat resistant material comprises a high heat resistant material (Teflon).
Regarding claim 11, Huber et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 8,
But fails to disclose wherein the first hose and the second hose lead to the spray gun through a second set of individual valves.
The examiner notes that ball vales are well known in the art and are very common in spray guns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to add additional ball valves at each end of the supply lines, as a backup, and in order to make it easier to replace just the supply line and just the spray gun individually.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the resin component and the isocyanate component enter into the mix tube and become combined (fig 1, 3).
Regarding claim 13, wherein a combined mixture of the resin component and the isocyanate component results in a polyurethane which is then propelled out of the spray gun when a gun trigger (88) is set in motion.
Claim(s) 23, 17, 39 and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (5,163,584) as modified by Scarpa et al. (5,964,418) above, further in view of Miller (2018/0056311)
Regarding claims 17 and 39, Huber et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 24, but fails to show a thermostat.
However, heated hoses inherently have to have some sort of thermostat to control the temperature of the heated hose. Additionally, Miler teaches a thermostat used in a spray system [0031][0044]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to add a thermostat to the system of Huber et al. as modified above, in order to control the temperature of the material being sprayed.
Regarding claims 23, 44 and 45, Huber et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 24, but fails to teach wherein said flow rate is between 3 and 50 pounds per minute
However, Miler teaches a similar spray system that teaches a flow rate 12 pounds per minute [003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to adjust the pressure so that the flow rate is 12 pounds per minute, in order to produce the desired amount of foam bet minute.
Regarding claim 44, if the same material and pressure is used for the flow rate of 12 pounds per minute, then the flow rate will also be between 5 and 70 gallons per minute.
Regarding claim 45, Huber et al. as modified above, shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 37, but fails to disclose a ¼" nylon hose is attached to the ball valve with a ¼'Joint Industry Council(JIC) union x ¼" male pipe thread (MPT) adapter.
However, Miler teaches a similar spray system that teaches a nylon hose [0051] that is attached to the ball valve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use a nylon hose for the hose 30 od Huber et al. as modified above, in order to have it be flexible.
The above combination fails to teach a 1/4 inch hose and a ¼'Joint Industry Council(JIC) union x ¼" male pipe thread (MPT) adapter.
The examiner notes that ¼ inch nylon hose and ¼'Joint Industry Council(JIC) union x ¼" male pipe thread (MPT) adapter are known elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to use a ¼ inch nylon hose and a ¼'Joint Industry Council(JIC) union x ¼" male pipe thread (MPT) adapter are known elements in order to allow for the correct flow rate and couple the hose to the ball valve easily.
Claim(s) 20 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huber et al. (5,163,584) in view of Armes et al. (9,546,037)
Regarding claims 20 and 42, Huber et al. shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claims 1 and 24, but fails to show a secondary safety trigger.
However, Armes et al. teaches similar spray gun that includes a secondary safety trigger (48)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the application as effectively field to add a safety trigger to the spray gun of Huber et al. in order to prevent unintended spraying.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection 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 JASON J BOECKMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-2708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 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.
/JASON J BOECKMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 2/26/2026