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 § 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, 9-11, 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (2015/0069147) in view of in view of Sheen (4,776,565) and Sandling (4,617,957)
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al shows a fan air control assembly (110, 120,125) for a spray gun configured to control flow of a fan air portion of compressed air to a spray end of the spray gun, the fan air portion configured to shape a spray pattern emitted by the spray gun, wherein the fan air control assembly comprises: a knob (125); a valve assembly (110, 120) operably connected to the knob, the valve assembly comprising: a valve mount (the nut 120) having a shaft bore extending axially therethrough along a valve axis (fig 2), a valve member (110) disposed at least partially within the shaft bore and fixed to the knob (fig 2), wherein the valve member comprises: a shaft body (110) having a flow controller (the side of 110 opposite the lever 125) disposed within a flow control body of the valve mount, the flow controller including at least one flow blocker (the blocker portion of 110) extending at least partially about the valve axis and at least one flow passage (the portion of 110 without the flow blocker that allows fluid to flow); wherein the valve member is rotatable on the valve axis to actuate the valve assembly between a maximum flow state and a minimum flow state (valve 110 rotates to control the flow of fan air).
But fails to disclose the valve mount comprising: a mount body; a position body extending from the mount body in a first axial direction; and a flow control body extending from the mount body in a second axial direction, wherein at least one flow opening extends through a side of the flow control body, the side extending around the valve axis, wherein a flow path through the valve mount extends between the at least one flow opening and an axial end of the shaft bore
Sheen shows a valve assembly including a fan lever (7) and a valve mount (5), the valve mount comprising: a mount body (5); a position body (6) extending from the mount body in a first axial direction; and a flow control body (lower portion of 5) extending from the mount body in a second axial direction, wherein at least one flow opening extends through a side of the flow control body (55, fig 3),, the side extending around the valve axis (fig 3), wherein the valve member comprises: a shaft body (20) having a flow controller (24, 25) disposed within a flow control body of the valve mount, the flow controller including at least one flow blocker (the blocker portion of 22) extending at least partially about the valve axis and at least one flow passage (24, 25); wherein the valve member is rotatable on the valve axis to actuate the valve assembly between a maximum flow state and a minimum flow state (fig 1-3), wherein a flow path through the valve mount extends between the at least one flow opening and an axial end of the shaft bore (fig 3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the valve of Sheen in place of valve of Chen et al. in order to precisely control the flow of fluid without leaking.
The above combination still fails to disclose that the knob is a lever
Sandling teaches a lever (20) to rotate a valve (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use a lever instead of a knob, in order to easily turn the valve.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the valve member further comprises: a connector (21, Sheen) disposed at an opposite axial end of the valve member from the flow controller (fig 3, sheen), the connector disposed within the fan lever and fixed to the fan lever (fig 3).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the connector includes a head (the top of 21, Sheen) having a first diameter and a mount groove (the internal threads of 21) spaced in the second axial direction from the head, and wherein the valve member is fixed to the fan lever by a first fastener (71) extending through the fan lever and into the mount groove.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the at least one flow blocker comprises an arcuate axial projection (the side of 22 is arcuate and extends in the axial direction, sheen).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the valve member includes a seal groove (the grove where seal 4 rides, sheen) formed on an exterior of the shaft body of the valve member, wherein a valve seal (4) is disposed in the seal groove, and wherein the valve seal interfaces with a portion of the valve mount forming the shaft bore (fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the valve member includes a shoulder (the shoulder of 22, Sheen) formed on the shaft body, the valve mount includes a brace (14) formed within the shaft bore, and the brace interfaces with the shoulder to limit movement of the valve member in the first axial direction (fig 2, 3).
Regarding claim 11 Chen et al as modified above shows the fan lever comprises: an adaptor (12 Sandling), wherein the first fastener (71) extends through the adaptor to interface with the valve member; and a lever cap (17), the lever cap receiving a portion of the adaptor and connected to the adaptor (fig 2), the lever cap including a lever arm (20) extending away from the valve axis (fig 3).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the at least one flow blocker is aligned with the flow opening to prevent any fan air flow therethrough with the valve assembly in the minimum flow state (fig 3 sheen).
Regarding claim 23, Chen et al. as modified above shows a fluid sprayer (fig 1) comprising: a gun body (165) having a handle (140) extending therefrom; a trigger (155) extending from the gun body, the trigger configured to be actuated to control spraying by the fluid sprayer; the fan air control assembly of claim 1 (fig 2, 110, 115, 120, 125) mounted to the gun body, the fan air control assembly extending into a fan air flow path through the gun body to control flow of fan air through the gun body (fig 2,7).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (2015/0069147) as modified by of Sheen (4,776,565) and Sandling (4,617,957) above, further in view of DeJager (4,475,712).
Regarding claim 6, Chen et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 5 above, but fails to disclose, wherein the at least one flow blocker includes a plurality of flow blockers and wherein the at least one flow passage includes a plurality of flow passages.
DeJager teaches a similar valve with a flow controller, where the at least one flow blocker includes a plurality of flow blockers (30, one on each side) and wherein the at least one flow passage includes a plurality of flow passages (27, one on each side).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to use the flow controller of DeJager instead of the flow controller of Chen as modified above, in order to make the valve lighter by eliminating unneeded material in the valve member.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (2015/0069147) as modified by Sheen (4,776,565) and Sandling (4,617,957) above, further in view of Shieh (2002/0148501)
Regarding claim 15, Chen et al as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 1, but fails to disclose a rotation notch is formed between a first circumferential end of the position body and a second circumferential end of the position body; and a rotation limiter extending from a shaft body of the valve member and disposed within the rotation notch; wherein the rotation notch limits movement of the rotation limiter in a first circumferential direction about the valve axis and in a second circumferential direction about the valve axis.
Shieh shows a valve with a rotation notch (29) is formed between a first circumferential end of the position body and a second circumferential end of the position body (fig 1); and a rotation limiter (42) extending from a shaft body (40) of the valve member and disposed within the rotation notch; wherein the rotation notch limits movement of the rotation limiter in a first circumferential direction about the valve axis and in a second circumferential direction about the valve axis (fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to add the rotation notch and rotation limiter of Shieh to the valve of Chen et al as modified above; in order to limit he valve rotation.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (2015/0069147) as modified by Sheen (4,776,565), Sandling (4,617,957) and Shieh (2002/0148501) above, further in view of Flider (3,964,728).
Regarding claim 16, Chen et al. as modified above shows all aspects of the applicant’s invention as in claim 15 above, but fails to disclose a spring interfacing with the fan lever and the valve mount, the spring configured to bias the fan lever in the second circumferential direction.
Flider teaches a valve having a spring (28) interfacing with the fan lever (25) and the valve mount (20), the spring configured to bias the fan lever in the second circumferential direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively field to add the sprig to the valve of Chen et al. as modified above in order to bias the valve in the normal position as taught by Flider (abstract)
Regarding claim 18, wherein: the valve member includes at least one valve groove (the space between 44 and 43 in Flider) oriented in the first axial direction; the fan lever includes at least one lever groove (29) oriented in the second axial direction; wherein a first spring arm of the spring is disposed in a first valve groove of the at least one valve groove and a second spring arm of the spring is disposed in a first lever groove of the at least one lever groove (fig 1).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the at least one valve groove includes a plurality of valve grooves formed on an end face of the position body (one on each side 43 and 44).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 14 and 21 are allowable
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 is allowable due to the multiple lever grooves in combination with remainder of the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim 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 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 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights