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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on December 11, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 17-24 and 26-34 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.
The term “substantially” in line 16 of claim 34 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The allowable deviation for the plumbness of vertical is not known. In other words, it is unclear if 1° or 3° of deviation from the total “vertical” is acceptable? Why and why not? Similar rejection applies to the term in lines 17-19.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18, 20-24, 26-28 and 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wambeke et al. (US 2010/0288772. Wambeke herein after) in view of in view of Garro (WO2009090273).
With respect to claim 34, Wambeke discloses a flow cup (Figs. 1-6) configured for (capable of being) use with a spray gun (4), the flow cup comprising: a material outlet (at 7) configured for (capable for) at least one of direct and indirect connection to the spray gun (Fig. 1); a material container (2) with a peripheral region (defining the opening of 2); and a snap-fit cover configured for (capable for) closing the material container, the screw cover having a central region (at 11. Fig. 4) and a peripheral region (at 6) with a receptacle groove (See Fig. 4 with additional annotations below) formed by an outer leg, a connecting web, and an inner leg; wherein the peripheral region of the material container is positionable in the receptacle groove of the snap-fit cover and configured for (capable for) forming a detachable and fluid-tight screw connection of the snap-fit cover to the material container; wherein the central region of the snap-fit cover adjoins the receptacle groove such that the central region of the snap-fit cover adjoins a lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove (Fig. 4); and wherein the central region of the screw cover extends radially outward toward the peripheral region (from 7 to 6) and then has a substantially vertical annular portion (See Fig. 4 with additional annotations below) that extends axially downward in a direction substantially parallel to the inner leg of the receptacle groove and toward the lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove and then has a substantially horizontal annular portion that extends substantially perpendicular (relative) to the inner leg of the receptacle groove and radially outward to connect a lowest end of the central region with lowest end of the lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove.
Wambeke fails to disclose the cover is a screw cover.
However, Garro teaches a flow cup (11 and 12. Figs. 1-8) configured for (capable of) use with a spray gun (not shown), the flow cup comprising: a material outlet (connected to 39) configured for (capable of) at least one of direct and indirect connection to the spray gun; a material container (12); and a screw cover (11) configured for closing the material container; wherein a peripheral region (defined by 38) of the material container is arranged in a receptacle groove (Between 26 and 30 and area partially occupied by posters 51) of the screw cover and configured for forming a detachable and fluid-tight screw connection of the screw cover to the material container; and wherein a central region (see Fig. 2 with additional annotations) of the screw cover adjoins (joining) the receptacle groove as a continuation of (not separated from) a lower end of an inner leg (see Fig. 2 with additional annotations) of the receptacle groove.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a screw cover, as taught by Garro, to Wambeke’s cover, in order to provide an alternative connection between the cover and the container (Fig. 2). A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in using a screw cover taught by Garro because the selection of a known device based on its suitability for its intended purpose is sufficient since only the expected results would be attained. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a screw cover taught by Garro because such a change is a mere alternative and functionally connection method. And because such a change would only produce an expected result, i.e, connecting the cover and the container. The use of alternative and functionally equivalent connection method would have been desirable to those of ordinary skill in the art based on the economics and availability of components.
With respect to claim 18, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches wherein the screw cover further comprises at least one threaded element (31) configured for (capable of) engaging with at least one corresponding threaded element (18) on the material container to form the detachable and fluid-tight screw connection (Figs. 4 and 5. same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 20, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches the flow cup as claimed in claim 34, further comprising at least one threaded element (first rib of ribs 31) disposed on the screw cover, the at least one threaded element (second rib of ribs 31) arranged in an interior of the receptacle groove.
With respect to claim 21, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches wherein the detachable and fluid-tight screw connection is multi-threaded screw connection (18, 41 and ribs 31. Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 22, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke and Garro further discloses wherein in a closed state (not shown) of the flow cup, the screw cover encompasses (encircling) the peripheral region of the material container (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 23, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches the flow cup as claimed in claim 34, wherein the detachable and fluid-tight screw connection between the screw cover and the material container occurs via circumferential sealing in an interior of the receptacle groove (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 24, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches the flow cup as claimed in claim 23, wherein the circumferential sealing includes at least one of radial (via 26 and 30) sealing and axial (via 50) sealing.
With respect to claims 26 and 32, Wambeke and Garro discloses the flow cup as in claim 34 except for wherein a thickness of a wall of the material container has a range from 0.55 mm to 0.65 mm (claim 26) and wherein a thickness of a wall of the material container has a range from 0.50 mm to 0.85 mm (claim 32).
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the wall thickness of the material container is in the range from 0.55 mm to 0.65 mm (claim 26) and 0.50 mm to 0.85 mm, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The thickness of the wall is a result effective variable because one skilled in the art would want to design the wall as small as possible to save cost and the environment, however, the strength of the container must be maintained specific to the application of the spray system. Therefore, arriving the optimum or workable thickness range of the wall, based on the intended result (thin wall but sturdy enough for the specific application), involves only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 27, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke further discloses the flow cup as claimed in claim 34, further comprising a ventilation device (9) in the central region of the screw cover.
With respect to claim 28, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke and Garro further discloses a screw cover (11 of Garro) or a material container (2 of Wambeke) of the flow cup as claimed in claim 34.
With respect to claim 30, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches wherein the at least one threaded element transitions into a center connecting web (flat top rim of 38), the center connecting web forming a base of the receptacle groove.
With respect to claim 31, Lin’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Garro further teaches wherein in a closed state of the flow cup, the screw cover encompasses (encircling) an infolded eversion (19. same configuration as the Applicant’s invention) of the peripheral region of the material container.
With respect to claim 33, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke further discloses the flow cup as claimed in claim 34, wherein the material container is formed as a cup (Fig. 1) having a base (connecting 3) and wherein the material outlet is arranged within the base.
PNG
media_image1.png
448
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 17, 19 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wambeke in view of Garro (WO2009090273) and further in view of Lin (US 20140103143).
With respect to claim 17, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke and Garro fail to disclose wherein a portion of the peripheral region of the material container is configured as an infolded eversion.
However, Lin teaches a flow cup (30, 50. Figs. 1-7) configured for (capable of) use with a spray gun, the flow cup comprising: a material outlet (63) configured for (capable of) at least one of direct and indirect connection to the spray gun; a material container (50) with a peripheral region (at 51, 52); and a snap-fit cover (30) configured for closing the material container, the snap-fit cover having a central region (from the center to 341) and a peripheral region (region radially outward of 341. Fig. 6) with a receptacle groove (occupied by 51. Fig. 2) formed by an outer leg (at 32), a connecting web (pointed by marker “303.” Fig. 2), and an inner leg (See enlarged Fig. 6 with additional annotations below); wherein the peripheral region of the material container is positionable in the receptacle groove of the snap-fit cover and configured for (capable of) forming a detachable and fluid-tight snap-fit connection of the snap-fit cover to the material container; wherein the central region of the snap-fit cover adjoins the receptacle groove such that the central region of the snap-fit cover adjoins a lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove; and wherein the central region of the snap-fit cover extends radially outward toward the peripheral region (See enlarged Fig. 6 of Lin with additional annotations below) and then extends axially downward in a direction toward the lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove and then extends radially outward to connect with the lower end of the inner leg of the receptacle groove and Lin further disclose wherein a portion of the peripheral region of the material container is configured as an infolded eversion (Same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a portion of the peripheral region with an infolded eversion, as taught by Lin, to Wambeke’s material container in order to provide a secure connection between the material container and the cover (Figs. 2-4 and [0019]).
With respect to claim 19, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover, Wambeke and Garro further teaches the flow cup as claimed in claim 34, further comprising at least one of at least one threaded element (31 of Garro) disposed on an inside of an outer leg (of Wambeke) of the receptacle groove. Wambeke and Garro fail to disclose at least one threaded element disposed on an outside of an outer leg of an infolded eversion of the peripheral region of the material container.
With respect to claim 29, Wambeke’s flow cup modified by Garro’s screw cover and Lin’s infolded eversion, Lin further discloses wherein the infolded eversion is reinforced by radial transverse ribs (32, 52).
PNG
media_image2.png
416
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
416
681
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 17-24 and 26-34 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the reference and/or combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 12, 2026