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 .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-24, 27-28, 31, and 37-44 are cancelled, claims 25-26, 29-30, 32-36, and 45-52 are pending, and claims 26, 32-33, and 47 are amended.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/23/2026 has been entered.
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: ventilation device in claim 26.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 27, 29-37, 45, 47-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delbridge (U.S. 2007/0158462) in view of Camilleri (U.S. 2006/0113409).
With respect to claim 47, Delbridge discloses a flow cup for a spray gun (figure 1, 16), the flow cup comprising:
a material outlet (outlet going to 60) configured for direct or indirect connection to the spray gun; and
a material container (container 20) and a lid (40) arrangement that detachably closes the material container (via threads of 24 with those of 50), wherein the flow cup has a first configuration in which an inner is be arranged in the material container (where 30 is included) and can be filled with a coating material so that the coating material with which the inner bag has been filled can be supplied to the spray gun via the material outlet (material within 30), and
wherein the detachable connection between the lid arrangement and the material container is configured such that the lid arrangement and the material container are connected to one another in fluid-tight fashion in a first position if the inner bag is clamped between the lid arrangement (paragraph 0027)
Delbridge fails to specifically disclose wherein the flow cup has a second configuration in which no inner bag is arranged in the material container and the flow cup can be filled with the coating material so that the coating material with which the flow cup has been filled can be supplied to the spray gun via the material outlet, and the material container and are connected to one another in fluid-tight fashion in a second position if no inner bag is clamped between the lid arrangement and the material container (as a seal occurs between 50 and 21, regardless of 30 in between, via the threads of 50 and 24, paragraph 0024, but the lack of a bag is noted not disclosed).
wherein a detachable connection between the material container and the lid arrangement provides a fluid-tight seal in both the first configuration and the second configuration.
Camilleri, figures 1-12, discloses a venting device that can be manually actuated (moved as shown by the arrows) allowing the prevention of liquid from emerging from the interior of the material container through the opening (as shown in figure 11) and allow for venting (shown in figure 12); allowing for the leftover paint to be stored in an airtight container. Such a venting allows for fluid which is placed directly in the container and kept for long periods of time to be sued for future work (paragraphs 0005-0006). Disclosing a configuration in which no inner bag is arranged in the material container and the flow cup can be filled with the coating material so that the coating material with which the flow cup has been filled can be supplied to the spray gun via the material outlet (shown in figures 1-8), and
wherein a detachable connection between the material container and the lid arrangement provides a fluid-tight seal in both the first configuration and the second configuration (the connecting formed tightly by 15/16, where 16 is an annular joint about the perimeter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the venting device of Camilleri into the system of Delbridge, to allow for leftover paint to be stored in an airtight container and be kept for long periods of time. Camilleri discloses being an alternative to the use of a bag (see paragraphs 0004-0005) for when storage will be for a long period of time. The combination then being, utilizing the vent of Camilleri so the system can work with or without a liner, utilizing a liner for easy cleaning, and not using a liner for when the paint will need long term storage in the container.
With respect to claim 25, Delbridge discloses the flow cup has a ventilation device (being the ventilation hole at the bottom of the cup) wherein the ventilation device has at least one ventilation opening via which pressure equalization for the interior of the material container is possible when the coating material emerges from the flow cup via the material outlet when the flow cup is used with and without the inner bag (paragraph 0019), and discloses that it can be installed and/or manually actuated by the user, wherein the ventilation device can, at least in one operating state, prevent liquid from emerging from the interior of the material container through the ventilation opening (as shown by Camilleri, figures 11-12, discloses a venting device that can be manually actuated (moved as shown by the arrows) allowing the prevention of liquid from emerging from the interior of the material container through the opening (as shown in figure 11) and allow for venting (shown in figure 12).
With respect to claim 27, Delbridge discloses the detachable connection (being the threaded connection between the lid and the container) between the material container and the lid arrangement is configured such that, when the flow cup is used with the inner bag, the inner bag can be clamped between the material container and the lid arrangement (paragraph 0026).
With respect to claim 29, Delbridge discloses the detachable connection between the material container and the lid arrangement is configured such that the lid arrangement is fastened with a sufficient holding force (the holding force of 50) to the material container when the flow cup is used with and without the inner bag (as 40 and 20 are held together via 50).
With respect to claim 30, Delbridge discloses the fluid-tight seal between the lid arrangement and the material container is realized by means of an axial and/or radial seal (being the radial seal of 50) when the flow cup is used with the inner bag and is realized by means of an axial and/or radial seal when the flow cup is used without the inner bag (being the radial seal of 50).
With respect to claim 32, Delbridge discloses in the first position inner bag is clamped in a radial annular gap between the lid arrangement and the material container (paragraph 0027), wherein, in the second position the lid arrangement and the material container bear radially directly against one another (as no rim 33 would be present the lid and container would then be against each other when collar 50 is threaded onto 24), or are spaced apart from one another (as a space can be formed if the 50 is not threaded all the way down on 24 such that there is a gap formed where 33 was located), in the region of the radial annular gap.
With respect to claim 33, Delbridge discloses in the first position an edge of the inner bag is clamped in an axial annular gap between the lid arrangement and the material container (paragraph 0027), wherein, in the second position the lid arrangement and the material container bear axially directly against one another, or are spaced apart from one another (as a space can be formed if the 50 is not threaded all the way down on 24 such that there is a gap formed where 33 was located), in the region of the axial annular gap.
With respect to claim 34, Delbridge discloses the lid arrangement (being the lid 40 and the that of 50) is equipped with a receiving groove (the threads of 50) for an edge region of the material container (the threads on the edge of 21 at 24), wherein a central region, adjoining the receiving groove, of the lid arrangement is designed as a continuation of at least a predominant part of an inner limb of the receiving groove (being the inner limb of the receiving groove, being central the threads, i.e. there being a central area of the thread with an inner limb of said thread that a corresponding thread would thread against).
With respect to claim 35, Delbridge discloses the lid arrangement is equipped with a receiving groove (threads grooves) for an edge region of the material container (grooves 24), which receiving groove is adjoined, radially to the inside, by a compensating ring groove (as the grooves receive the threads of the opposite threaded sections).
With respect to claim 36, Delbridge discloses the connection between lid arrangement and material container is designed as a screw connection (as the threads screw together).
With respect to claim 45, Delbridge discloses the flow cup as claimed in claim 24 and an inner bag, wherein the inner bag has, at an open-end side, an encircling edge (the edge formed by 33) from which a peripheral wall leads away (as the peripheral walls leads down, and away), the peripheral wall at an opposite end side is closed or has an outlet projection (as the peripheral wall has a closed bottom, at 32).
With respect to claim 48, Delbridge discloses the inner bag has at least one fold line (see figure 2, pleats 34).
With respect to claim 49, Delbridge discloses at least one fold line runs in annularly closed or spiral-shaped fashion on the peripheral wall of the inner bag (figure 2, discloses annular pleats).
With respect to claim 50, Delbridge discloses at least one fold line comprises multiple annularly closed fold lines which have equal spacings (as shown in figure 2, paragraph 0021), or spacings which increase or decrease in a longitudinal direction of the inner bag, to one another.
With respect to claim 51, Delbridge discloses the inner bag has a bellows-shaped design (figure 2, pleats 34).
With respect to claim 52, Delbridge discloses the inner bag, opposite the open end side, is closed with a smooth base or has a funnel-shaped outlet projection (figures 2 and 3 discloses the opposite open side is the bottom wall, understood as being “smooth”).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delbridge and Camilleri and further in view of Lin (U.S. 2014/0103143).
With respect to claim 26, Delbridge disclose the flow cup and the lid arrangement, but fails to disclose the flow cup comprises a ventilation device that is positioned on the lid arrangement.
Lin, figure 1, discloses a ventilation device that is arranged on the lid arrangement. The paint cup of the present invention has a vent to atmosphere to prevent a negative pressure from forming in the paint cup and has an accommodating groove to collect paint solvents to eliminate undesirable dripping of the paint solvents from the vent, thereby keeping airflow circulating in the paint cup and allowing the spray gun to be smoothly operated (paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the vent of Lin into the system of Delbridge to eliminate undesirable dripping of the paint solvents from the vent, thereby keeping airflow circulating in the paint cup and allowing the spray gun to be smoothly operated.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delbridge and Camilleri and further in view of ALEXANDER (U.S. 2249082).
With respect to claim 46, Delbridge discloses the flow cup as claimed in claim 24, but fails to disclose the flow cup arrangement further comprises a replacement element (the rim 33 placeable between 43 and 25) which can be clamped between the lid arrangement and the material container instead of an inner bag in order for the flow cup to be used without an inner bag.
Alexander, figure 1, shows using gasket (20) being placed between the lid and the container, allowing for a fluid-tight seal between the two (page 2 column 1 lines 5-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a gasket such as Alexander can be used in the system of Delbridge to further allow sealing between the lid and the container (such that no bag is used within the container). This would allow the system to be used without additional plastic waste. It is understood, that such a replacement element could be taken as that of 16 in Camilleri, but Camilleri fails to specifically disclose it being “clamped.”
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Amendment filed (02/23/2026) has been entered. Currently claims 1-24, 27-28, 31, and 37-44 are cancelled, claims 25-26, 29-30, 32-36, and 45-52 are pending, and claims 26, 32-33, and 47 are amended. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have failed each and every rejection previously set forth in the Office Action dated (10/21/2025).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination lacks motivation to combine the two references and would require substantial reconstruction and redesign. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination discloses that not using a liner and the venting of Camilleri would allow for a device that allows for long term storage of the paint, where the primary reference uses a liner so that all the paint is used. If one needs to use all the paint in the liner, they would include the liner to make sure all the paint is used, and if they know all the paint won’t get used they would removed the liner so that the paint can then be stored in the container. The examiner disagrees that this would take any substantial reconstruction or redesign, rather a change of the vent and remove or use the liner as intended.
Applicant further argues that the basic principle under the primary reference is destroyed when combining the two references. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the liner can still be used in a configuration where it is desired. No element is being introduced that prevents the liner, rather a teaching of why not using a liner would be beneficial. The applicant further argues back that removal of the liner completely changes the basic principles under which the liquid spray assembly operates. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the spray system of the second system still sprays paint. The combination is not teaching never using a liner, but why one would use a liner in one instance and no liner in another instance.
Applicant further argues that with removal of the liner no flight-tight seal would be utilized. Examiner respectfully disagrees, because if the combination failed to have a fluid-tight seal then Camilleri would not be able to function. Furthermore, in Delbridge, if the liner is removed and no more flange/rim 33 is present then the top of 25 would just rest against that of 41 when threaded with that of 51, which forms the fluid tight connections between the two elements. Threading 24 against that of 54 would form a fluid tight seal, as such threading of two elements together is known to form such fluid tight seals. Applicant further argues about the inclusion of the filter of Camilleri, but the filter being used as seal between the two can be seen in figure 8, where the filter is essentially smooshed between 2 and 4 when screwed together. Figure 8 discloses the filter extending from the sides of 4 about 16, which is different then what is shown in figure 3 where it is not. Applicant makes further arguments against Camilleri, but the combination is in view of what’s shown in figure 6, where such element 15 is placed between them, nor would such removal of the filter change the fluid tight seal being formed by the threads in that of Delbridge. It is agreed by the examiner that the fluid tight seal of Camilleri Is caused by threads, and is located where 15 and 16 are contacted as the device is threaded together.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
505
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights