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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “102” has been used to designate both “slider”, “Yoke slider” and “sliding rod” in the Specification. Reference character “132” also has been used to designate both “mounting support system” and “item” within the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 6-12 have been renumbered claims 5-11, respectively.
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses. Specifically, there are no parentheses for references such as “Fig. 9”, “Fig. 5”, and “Fig. 6”.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in line 2 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “nozzle” and insert --a--,
delete “.” after “solution” and insert --;--;
in line 3 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “nozzle” and insert --a--,
delete “.” after “(107)” and insert --;--;
in line 4 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “reservoir” and insert --a--,
delete “.” after “solution” and insert --;--;
in line 5 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “microcontroller” and insert --a--,
insert --smart-- before “sprayer”,
delete “.” after “apparatus” and insert --;--;
in line 6 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “Scotch” and insert --a--,
delete “Crank” and insert --crank--,
delete “Yoke” and insert --yoke--;
in line 7 of Claim 1,
delete “A” before “DC” and insert --a--,
delete “Crank” and insert --crank--,
delete “.” after “(101)” and insert --;--;
in line 8 of Claim 1,
delete “An” before “attachable” and insert --an--,
insert --smart-- before “sprayer”;
in line 9 of Claim 1, delete “.” after “usage” and insert --;--;
in line 10 of Claim 1, delete “Wherein” before “said” and insert --wherein--;
in line 11 of Claim 1,
delete “Crank” and insert --crank--,
delete “Yoke” and insert --yoke--;
in line 13 of Claim 1, delete “Smartphone” and insert --smartphone--;
in line 14 of Claim 1, insert --apparatus-- after “sprayer”;
in line 2 of Claim 2, insert --mist dispersion-- before “frequency”;
in line 3 of Claim 5, delete “,” after “wirelessly” and insert --.--;
in line 2 of Claim 7, insert --smart sprayer-- before “apparatus”;
in line 3 of Claim 9,
delete “A” before “smart” and insert --a--,
delete “.” after “vehicle” and insert --,--;
in line 4 of Claim 9, delete “Wherein” and insert --wherein--;
in line 3 of Claim 10, delete “. These spaces encompass, but are not restricted to,” and insert --including--;
in line 4 of Claim 10, delete “homes.” and insert --and homes,--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Scotch Yoke mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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: “voice recognition technology” in claim 8.
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 § 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 1-11 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claims 1-11 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 Claims 1, 3 and 10, it is not clear whether limitations such as “Fig. 9”, “Fig. 5”, and “Fig. 6” are attempting to set forth reference characters, particularly as Figures are not deemed/appropriate to be reference characters.
In Claim 1, it is not clear whether “smartphone application” is a component of a smart sprayer apparatus as such component is located within a smartphone rather than in the claimed invention of a sprayer apparatus.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the base" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operation" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the … length" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 2, it is not clear whether the limitation of “control logic” is further limiting the parent claim as the limitation of “smartphone application” as set forth in the parent claim appears to point to the same function.
In Claim 3, it is not clear whether “said Scotch Yoke mechanism…comprises precision-engineered components” is attempting to set forth additional parts/components of the Scotch Yoke mechanism or merely to indicate that the components of the Scotch Yoke as set forth in the parent claim 1 (i.e. crank, yoke, pin and slider) have been manufactured via precision engineering.
In Claim 4, it is not clear whether the limitation that “said DC motor (103) is in communication with said microcontroller (99)…” is further limiting the parent claim as the parent claim 1 already set forth that “said microcontroller (99)…is configured to control the activation of said DC motor…”.
In Claim 5, it is not clear whether “a smartphone app interface” is attempting to set forth the same limitation as that (i.e. “smartphone application”) already set forth in the parent claim. In addition, it is not clear whether “smartphone app interface” is a component of a smart sprayer apparatus as such component is located within a smartphone rather than in the claimed invention of a sprayer apparatus.
In Claim 6, it is not clear whether “A smart sprayer system as described in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said touchless control commands" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the mist dispersion process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 6, it is not clear what additional structural limitation is being set forth to further limit the parent claim.
In Claim 7, it is not clear whether “A smart sprayer system as described in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said touchless operation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 7, it is not clear what additional structural limitation is being set forth to further limit the parent claim.
In Claim 8, it is not clear whether “A smart sprayer system as described in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1.
Claim limitation “voice recognition technology” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, there is no disclosure within the Specification of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
In Claim 8, it is not clear whether “a voice recognition technology” is a component of a remote device such as a smartphone or a component present within the smart sprayer apparatus.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the app" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the range" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 9, it is not clear whether “A smart sprayer system as described in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1. In particular, it is not clear whether “a smart sprayer apparatus” as set forth in line 3 is the smart sprayer apparatus as set forth in parent claim 1 particularly in view of the limitation “said microcontroller” in line 4.
In Claim 10, it is not clear whether “A smart sprayer system, as delineated in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1.
In Claim 10, it is not clear what additional structural limitation is being set forth to further limit the parent claim.
In Claim 11, it is not clear whether “The smart sprayer system, as described in claim 1” in line 1 is attempting to refer to the “smart sprayer apparatus” of claim 1 or a smart sprayer system that comprises the smart sprayer apparatus of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The smart sprayer system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 11, it is not clear what additional structural limitation is being set forth to further limit the parent claim.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase "such as" in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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) 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (KR200350371) in view of Bellinger (CA2929861), Pollizi (20090169420), .
As to Claim 1, Jung (‘371) discloses a smart sprayer apparatus (see Figures 1-11), comprising:
a nozzle (9) for dispersing a spraying solution;
a nozzle bracket (50; 150) attached to said nozzle (9);
a reservoir (7) for storing said spraying solution;
a microcontroller (174, 170);
a mechanism (31, 32, 33; 131, 132, 133, 160); and
a DC motor (20; 120) centrally located within said mechanism (31, 32, 33; 131, 132, 133, 160) (see Figures 2 and 4-6);
wherein said microcontroller (174, 170) is configured to control the activation of said DC motor (20; 120) to drive said mechanism (31, 32, 33; 131, 132, 133, 160) and causing said nozzle (9) to move in a controlled vertical trajectory for mist dispersion.
Jung (‘071) does not appear to specifically teach that the smart sprayer apparatus comprises a Scotch Yoke mechanism comprising a crank, yoke, pin, and slider; an attachable and detachable mounting support affixed to the smart sprayer apparatus for attachment to parallel surfaces enabling versatile usage; and smartphone application that empowers users to exercise precise control over the operation of the smart sprayer apparatus, enabling adjustments to mist dispersion frequency, duration, cycle repetition, and activation through voice command functionality, or that the microcontroller is positioned at the base of the smart sprayer apparatus.
As to the limitation that the smart sprayer apparatus comprises a Scotch Yoke mechanism comprising a crank, yoke, pin, and slider, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a smart sprayer apparatus that comprises a Scotch Yoke mechanism comprising a crank, yoke, pin, and slider. Bellinger (‘861) discloses a smart sprayer apparatus (see Figures 2-12) comprising
a nozzle (18b) for dispersing a spraying solution;
a nozzle bracket (16) attached to said nozzle (18b) (see Figures 2-3, 4A and 5A);
a reservoir (18) for storing said spraying solution;
a controller (60) (see Figures 9-10);
a Scotch Yoke mechanism comprising a crank (25a), yoke (27a), pin (25b), and slider (27c) (see entire document, particularly Figures 4-4a, p. 15 [0056]); and
a DC motor (25) centrally located within said Scotch Yoke mechanism (see Figures 3-4a),
in order to provide improved power consumption while minimizing the risk of stalling the motor while providing consistent actuation forces against the nozzle (see entire document, particularly p. 16 [0059] and [0061]-[0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a Scotch Yoke mechanism comprised of a crank, yoke, pin, and slider in the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung in order to improve power consumption while minimizing the risk of stalling the motor while providing consistent actuation forces against the nozzle as shown by Bellinger.
As to the limitations that the smart sprayer apparatus comprises an attachable and detachable mounting support affixed to the smart sprayer apparatus for attachment to parallel surfaces enabling versatile usage and smartphone application that empowers users to exercise precise control over the operation of the smart sprayer apparatus, enabling adjustments to mist dispersion frequency, duration, cycle repetition, and activation through voice command functionality, it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an attachable and detachable mounting support as well as smartphone application in a smart sprayer apparatus. Pollizi (‘420) discloses a smart sprayer apparatus (1) (see Figures 1-4) comprising:
a nozzle (15) for dispersing a spraying solution;
a reservoir (14) for storing said spraying solution;
a controller (3) (see entire document, particularly Figures 3-4, p. 1 [0015]-[0016], p. 2 [0017]-[0020]);
an attachable and detachable mounting support (5) affixed to the smart sprayer apparatus (1) (see Figures 3-4); and
smartphone application that empowers users to exercise precise control over the operation of the smart sprayer apparatus (1) (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0015] – lines 10-12), capable of enabling adjustments to mist dispersion frequency, duration, cycle repetition, and activation through voice command functionality
in order for attachment to parallel surfaces enabling versatile usage (see Figures 1-4) and to enable control of the smart sprayer apparatus remotely (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0015] – lines 10-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an attachable and detachable mounting support as well as smartphone application in the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung in order to enable attaching the smart sprayer apparatus as well as to enable control of the smart sprayer apparatus remotely as shown by Pollizi.
As to the limitation that the microcontroller is positioned at the base of the smart sprayer apparatus, while Jung (‘071) does not appear to specifically teach where the microcontroller (174, 170) is located, it would have been well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the microcontroller (174, 170) in any location, including at the base of the smart sprayer apparatus, as a matter of engineering choice. Only the expected results would be attained.
As to Claim 3, the Scotch Yoke mechanism (see entire document, particularly Figures 4-4a, p. 15 [0056]) of Bellinger (‘861) comprises precision-engineered components (25a, 27a, 25b, 27c), ensuring smooth and controlled vertical motion of said nozzle (18b).
As to Claim 4, Bellinger (‘861) discloses that said DC motor (25) is in communication with said microcontroller (60), receiving control signals for precise activation and deactivation (see entire document, particularly p. 22 [0078] – p. 23 [0082]).
As to Claim 5, Pollizi (‘420) discloses that the controller (3) is configured to communicate with a smartphone app interface wirelessly (i.e. where communications with a cell phone is wireless - see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0015] – lines 10-12), wherein the cell phone is capable of having/intrinsically has one or more smartphone app interface(s).
As to Claim 6, in the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi, a touchless control commands is capable of being executed from a distance, allowing users to activate, adjust, or deactivate a mist dispersion process without the need to physically approach or handle the smart sprayer apparatus.
As to Claim 7, in the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi, a touchless operation is capable of enhancing hygiene and safety by minimizing physical contact with the smart sprayer apparatus, making it suitable for use in healthcare facilities, public spaces, and high-traffic areas where infection control and user safety are paramount.
As to Claim 8, the cell phone as disclosed by Pollizi (‘420) (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0015] – lines 10-12) is capable of further comprising a voice recognition technology that enables users to issue touchless voice commands through a smartphone app to control mist dispersion, expanding the range of touchless control options and accommodating users with diverse preferences and needs.
As to Claim 9, the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi is capable of being used within all types of vehicles wherein the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi is capable of being securely affixed within an interior of a vehicle, and where the controller of Pollizi (‘420) is configured to receive control commands from a smartphone app interface (see entire document, particularly p. 1 [0015] – lines 10-12) capable to regulate mist dispersion frequency, duration, and activation, thereby enhancing the well-being and comfort of vehicle occupants during travel, relaxation, or sleep.
As to Claim 10, the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi is further versatile in its application, suitable for integration into gym environments, attachment to bicycles, and utilization within a diverse range of interior spaces including residential settings, office spaces, indoor recreational areas, homes, and are conducive to both outdoor and indoor sport activities (see Bellinger (‘861), for example - p. 22 [0079]).
As to Claim 11, the smart sprayer apparatus of Jung as modified by Bellinger and Pollizi is further extendable in its application and can be affixed to electronic devices, such as smartphones, laptops, and other portable electronics.
Thus, Claims 1 and 3-11 would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Jung (‘071), Bellinger (‘861), and Pollizi (‘420).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references relate either to the field of the invention or subject matter of the invention, but are not relied upon in the rejection of record: CZ240197A3, CA2986042, EP1695720, KR20060003978, WO2019175775, 20070204388, 10426863, 9782509, 7785541, 20200122181, GB2578127, 20240408263.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINA M YOO whose telephone number is (571)272-6690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/REGINA M YOO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758