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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (Figs 1-3) in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 10-11 and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant has acknowledged in the reply that claims 1-7, 9 and 12-14 are directed to the elected embodiment; only these claims will be considered hereafter.
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 4, 6, 13 and 14 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the effective direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the effective direction" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13 and 14 are indefinite for depending on claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broker (EP 3100789 A1). Note: references made in parenthesis are referencing highlighted sections of the specification of Broker in the translation provided by Examiner herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Broker teaches a spraying device (spray gun seen in Figs 1-12) with air atomization (compresses air exits the device via atomizing air opening 47) and pneumatic drive (a pneumatic drive is driven by compressed air KL, as disclosed in abstract), comprising:
at least one air valve (shown below) for controlling a spraying air flow through the spraying device (as seen in Fig 5 and disclosed in the highlighted section of translation),
at least one media valve (defined by valve needle 32) for controlling a media flow through the spraying device (the valve needle 32 controls the dispensing of media, i.e. fluid M, through the nozzle 13), and
at least one first pneumatically actuated drive piston (37) for actuation of the at least one air valve (compressed air sent to chamber 36 forces the piston 37 to move rearwards to actuate the air valve), and
at least one second pneumatically actuated drive piston (28) for actuation of the at least one media valve (28 is pneumatically actuated by compressed gas KL, which forces piston 37 to contact piston 28, as disclosed in the highlighted section).
Regarding claim 2, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first drive piston and the at least one second drive piston are mechanically decoupled (37 and 28 are decoupled, since piston 37 is free to move rearwards until it contacts piston 28, see highlighted section; that is, the two pistons are decoupled at least until they come in contact with each other).
Regarding claim 3, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one air valve comprises a first valve seat (shown below) and a first closing part (shown below), which is preferably a valve plug (“preferably” indicates this feature is not positively claimed; nonetheless, the first closing part acts as a plug by sealing against the first valve seat see annotated figure below), that is mechanically coupled to the at least one first drive piston (the first closing part is mechanically coupled to the first piston 37, see below).
Regarding claim 4, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 3, wherein a first preload spring (19) that acts on the at least one first drive piston (19 acts on piston 37, as seen in Figs 1-12) and works against an effective direction thereof (the spring 19 acts on piston 37 to maintain it against a position that corresponds to activation of the air valve, see highlighted section), whereby the at least one first drive piston can move linearly back and forth between an idle position (position of piston 37 corresponding to non-activated state, seen in Fig 3 and 10) and an operating position (position where the piston 37 moves linearly backward to unseat the air valve and contact piston 28), and whereby the first preload spring presses the first closing part against the first valve seat, mediated by the at least one first drive piston (as seen in Figs 3 and 10, the first spring 19 presses the drive piston 37 which in turn presses the first closing part against the first valve seat).
Regarding claim 5, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the media valve comprises a second valve seat (shown below) and a second closing part (shown below), which is preferably a valve stem (the second closing part is the downstream end of valve needle 32, i.e. a stem), that is mechanically coupled to the at least one second drive piston (the valve needle 32, which includes the second closing part, is mechanically coupled to second piston 28, see highlighted section).
Regarding claim 6, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 5, wherein a second preload spring (20) that acts on the at least one second drive piston (20 acts on second piston 28, see Figs 1-12 and highlighted section) and works against an effective direction thereof (the second spring 20 acts on piston 28 to maintain the valve needle in a closed position, i.e. a position that is against an activated position, see highlighted section), whereby the at least one second drive piston can move linearly back and forth between an idle position (position of piston 28 corresponding to non-activated state, seen in Fig 3 and 10) and an operating position (position where the piston 28 moves linearly backward to unseat the media valve, i.e. needle 32), and whereby the second preload spring presses the second closing part against the second valve seat, mediated by the at least one second drive piston (as seen in Figs 3 and 10, the second spring 20 presses the drive piston 28 which in turn presses the second closing part against the second valve seat).
Regarding claim 7, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first drive piston and the at least one second drive piston are arranged along a common longitudinal axis (as seen in Figs 1-12, both pistons 37 and 28 are aligned on the same longitudinal axis), acting in opposing effective directions (Examiner notes that “effective directions” is broadly claimed, as such the first piston 37 moves toward the nozzle 13 to effectively seal the air valve, while the second piston 28 moves in an opposing direction, away from nozzle 13, in order to effectively open the media valve, thus reading on claim language).
Regarding claim 9, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 1, wherein a first piston chamber (36) associated with the at least one first drive piston and a second piston chamber (also 36; note: the first and second chambers are interpreted as being common chamber 36, which is that same as Applicant’s common chamber 133, which serves a chamber for both pistons, See Applicant’s specification Par 0060 and elected Figs 1-3) associated with the at least one second drive piston (the chamber 36 is a common chamber that when compressed air from KL is sent there, pressure build up causes the first piston 37 and second piston 28 to actuate) and are directly fluidly connected to one another and have a common control air supply (common air supply KL supplies chamber 36, see Fig 4).
Regarding claim 12, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 7, wherein a first piston chamber (36) associated with the at least one first drive piston and a second piston chamber (also 36; note: the first and second chambers are interpreted as being common chamber 36, which is that same as Applicant’s common chamber 133, which serves a chamber for both pistons, See Applicant’s specification Par 0060 and elected Figs 1-3) associated with the at least one second drive piston (the chamber 36 is a common chamber that when compressed air from KL is sent there, pressure build up causes the first piston 37 and second piston 28 to actuate) are formed by a common piston chamber (defined by 36) having a common control air supply (common air supply KL supplies chamber 36, see Fig 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
824
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Broker (EP 3100789 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 6, wherein a first preload spring (19) that acts on the at least one first drive piston (19 acts on piston 37, as seen in Figs 1-12) and works against the effective direction thereof (the spring 19 acts on piston 37 to maintain it against a position that corresponds to activation of the air valve, see highlighted section), whereby the at least one first drive piston can move linearly back and forth between an idle position (position of piston 37 corresponding to non-activated state, seen in Fig 3 and 10) and an operating position (position where the piston 37 moves linearly backward to unseat the air valve and contact piston 28), and whereby the first preload spring presses the first closing part against the first valve seat, mediated by the at least one first drive piston (as seen in Figs 3 and 10, the first spring 19 presses the drive piston 37 which in turn presses the first closing part against the first valve seat) and wherein the first preload spring (19) and the second preload spring (20) are designed such that the first preload spring in the idle position pushes against the at least one first drive piston with a lower preload than that applied by the second preload spring in the idle position pushing against the at least one second drive piston (the first spring 19 pushes against the first drive piston 37 with a lower load than when the piston 37 moves against the piston 28 and the load of second spring 20 is acted on the piston 37; in other words, at idle the first piston 37 experiences a lower load than when the first piston 37 contacts piston 28, because at that point the load of both springs is acting on the first piston).
If it found that Broker does not teach the first preload spring and the second preload spring designed such that the first preload spring in the idle position pushes against the at least one first drive piston with a lower preload than that applied by the second preload spring in the idle position pushing against the at least one second drive piston, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable preload ranges for the springs, since 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Broker discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable preload forces for each spring. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the first spring with a lower preload than the second spring. Finally, changes in spring force affect the characteristics of how the spray gun dispenses each fluid, i.e. they are a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different spring preloads to meet any desired dispensing characteristics, based on intended use; for example based on viscosity of media (M) dispensed.
Regarding claim 14, Broker teaches the spraying device according to claim 13. However, Broker does not teach the device wherein the first preload spring has a lower spring constant than the second preload spring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable spring constants for the springs, since 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 routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Broker discloses all the general structure of the claim. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable spring constant for each spring. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any benefit to having the first spring with a lower spring constant than the second spring. Finally, changes in spring constant affect the characteristics of how the spray gun dispenses each fluid, i.e. they are a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different spring constants to meet any desired dispensing characteristics, based on intended use; for example based on viscosity of media (M) dispensed, since perhaps a high viscosity fluid would require a spring with relatively lower spring constant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
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.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights