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 amendment filed on 04/29/26, applicants have amended claims 1, 5, 8 and 10. The art rejections described in the Non-Final Rejection sent on 12/29/25 have been withdrawn in view of the amendment and applicants’ persuasive argument.
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 1-10 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.
In claim 1, lines 5-6, the phrase “each pressure relief valve” lacks proper antecedent basis because in claim 1, lines 1-2 the phrases “a pressure relief valve” and “the pressure relief valve” are claimed. For the purpose of examination, a plurality of pressure relief valves (see applicants Fig 6 with a plurality of relief valves 11) is assumed in claim 1, lines 1-2 as “pressure relief valves” and “the pressure relief valves”.
In claim 1, lines 10-11, the phrase “to pressurize one of the circuits” lacks proper antecedent. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “to pressurize one of the first and second fluid supply circuits” or “to pressurize one of the fluid supply circuits” is assumed.
In claim 1, line 11, the phrase “the unpressurized circuit” lacks proper antecedent. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the other one fluid supply circuit not receiving the pressurized air” is assumed (in view of applicants’ specification, see page 7, lines 24-27).
In claim 1, lines 17-18 & 23, claim 5, lines 2-3 and claim 10, line 3 each the phrase “the wetting fluid reservoir” lacks proper antecedent. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “the unpressurized wetting fluid reservoir” is assumed.
In claim 1, line 22, the phrase “that circuit” lacks proper antecedent. For the purpose of examination, the phrase “that fluid supply circuit” is assumed
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the subject matter of claims 1-10 is allowable in view of the amendment and applicants’ persuasive argument regarding the first and second fluid supply circuits to pressurize one of the first and second fluid supply circuits and to vent air from the other one fluid supply circuit not receiving the pressurized air in communication with the unpressurized wetting fluid reservoir and air-driven piston in the cylinder which provide fluid pressure charging the spray head in view of the closest prior art of record DE’719 (see Applicants’ Remarks on pages 7-8 as described below).
“Claim 1 element 4 requires, "an air-supply valve controlled by the controller to deliver pressurized air to the first fluid supply circuit and, alternatively, to the second fluid supply circuit to pressurize one of the circuits and to vent air from the unpressurized circuit[.]" DE'719 lacks the claimed structure at least because supply valve 30 supplies compressed gas to all pressure containers 18, 20, 90 simultaneously with no alternation and thus fails to meet the claim language. The DE '719 venting device 37 (FIGS. 1-2) and adjusting devices 108, 110 (FIG. 3) lack the claimed structure”; and
“Turning next to applicant's claim 1 element 5, that element requires, "a cylinder operatively connected to the air-supply valve;" and "an air-driven piston in the cylinder which advances to provide fluid pressure charging the spray head with wetting fluid and which retracts to create negative fluid pressure replenishing the cylinder with wetting fluid". This claim element is entirely missing from DE '719. The DE '719 pressure containers 18, 20, 90 are not cylinders, there is no piston in a cylinder, there is no air driven piston which advances to provide fluid pressure at least because the DE '719 gas cushion must provide the pressure to avoid contact with a mechanical piston, there is no negative pressure in a cylinder created by a piston in the cylinder, and there is no wetting fluid. DE '719 explicitly teaches against the claimed mechanical force-creating piston structure to displace specialty paints. As explained above, both DE '719 and EP '109 teach the use of a compressed gas 68, 70 to displace the paint from pressure containers 18, 20 or a chamber in a delivery position. This differs from applicant's " air-driven piston in the cylinder which advances to provide fluid pressure charging the spray head with wetting fluid… " as claimed in amended claim 1”.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 YEWEBDAR T TADESSE whose telephone number is (571)272-1238. The examiner can normally be reached 7.00-3:30 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
YEWEBDAR T. TADESSE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
/YEWEBDAR T TADESSE/
Prosecution Insights