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 .
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendments and arguments.
New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 112 are put forth upon further consideration.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 14, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
Regarding claim 9, the term “flexible” renders the claims indefinite as the claim does not recite any amount of flexibility. The term “flexible” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, any container would be deemed to meet the limitation of a “flexible container.”
Claims 14-17 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 9 and failure to resolve the issues contained therein.
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 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tam teaches a method for an architectural coating composition, including paint and stain compositions, comprising the step of (spraying paint using a spray gun Fig. 1, 10):
(i) preparing the architectural coating composition ([0012] = receiving flow of paint understood to be preparing the composition),
(ii) applying a pressure source ranging from 50 MPa to about 1,000 MPa, to said architectural composition for a duration of up to about 10 minutes ([0012], pump applies a pressure of 51.7 MPa to spray paint, wherein the spraying of the paint is understood to be for an instantaneous duration below 10 minutes).
The limitation “(iii) optionally storing the architectural composition” is an optional step and therefore not being given patentable weight.
The limitation “for reducing biological agents in an architectural coating composition, including paint and stain compositions” is met by the teachings of Tam because the reduction of biological agents would necessarily flow the application of high pressure to paint as taught by Tam since Tam teaches steps identical to those as claimed. Additionally, it is noted that any amount of reduction would meet the limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Tam teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the architectural composition is stored in a flexible container before step (ii) (Fig. 4, chamber piece 38 is flexible [0020]) and contains channel 48 [0017] which accommodates paint [0025])
Claims 14-17 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 9.
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) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1) in view of McDaniel (US 8,618,066 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Tam teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach step (vii) adding a biocide or antimicrobial agent to the architectural composition.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with preventing microbial growth within the composition, motivating one to turn towards McDaniel. McDaniel teaches a coating composition containing a peptidic additive [abstract] wherein the additive, when added to a coating composition, reduces microbial growth (col. 3, lines. 19-33).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition as taught by Tam to include the peptidic additive as taught by McDaniel because McDaniel teaches the additive to reduce microbial growth within a coating composition (col. 3, lines. 19-33) and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1) in view of Verhaeghe (US 20070272323 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tam teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the composition may be stored in a flexible chamber (Fig. 4, chamber piece 38 is flexible [0020]) and contains channel 48 [0017] which accommodates paint [0025]) but does not teach wherein a void space within said flexible container is less than about 10% of the volume of the flexible container.
One having ordinary skill in the art would be concerned with determining the ideal fill capacity within the flexible chamber to ensure optimal spray operation, motivating one to turn towards Verhaeghe. Verhaeghe teaches a flexible container for storing paint [abstract] wherein the container can be formed from a variety of polymeric materials to ensure flexibility such as polyethylene (PE), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or polyethylene terephtalate (PETP or PET [0019-0020]. Verhaeghe also teaches wherein the flexible container is filled with paint (understood to be a void space less than 10% of the container volume) to ensure the outflow of paint is not hindered and to prevent the container from collapsing during operation [0052].
Verhaeghe is considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to the paint storage and spraying arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible chamber as taught by Tam to be filled with paint as taught by Verhaeghe because Verhaeghe teaches the volume to ensure the outflow of paint is not hindered and to prevent the container from collapsing during operation [0052] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2143(I)(G).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Tam teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the composition may be stored in a flexible chamber (Fig. 4, chamber piece 38 is flexible [0020]) and contains channel 48 [0017] which accommodates paint [0025]) but does not teach wherein the flexible container is made from a material selected from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), amorphous PET (APET), crystalline PET (CPET), high density polyethylene (HDPE), low density polyethylene (LDPE) or polypropylene (PP).
Verhaeghe teaches a flexible container for storing paint [abstract] wherein the container can be formed from a variety of polymeric materials to ensure flexibility such as polyethylene terephtalate (PETP or PET) [0019-0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the storage means as taught by Modified Tam with the polyethylene terephtalate container as taught by Verhaeghe because it was known to be a material suitable for the intended purpose of storing a composition for spray distribution. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1) in view of Schwartz (US 6,796,514 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Tam teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the composition may be stored in a flexible chamber (Fig. 4, chamber piece 38 is flexible [0020]) and contains channel 48 [0017] which accommodates paint [0025]) but does not teach wherein said flexible container comprises a film seal.
One having ordinary skill in the arm would be concerned with sealing the internal contents of the composition to prevent exposure to microbes, motivating one to turn towards Schwartz. Schwartz teaches a supply assembly for a spray gun [abstract] comprising a flexible container (Fig. 1, 20) containing a composition and heat sealed with a film (col. 6, lns. 45-56).
Schwartz is considered analogous to the claimed invention since it is drawn to the paint handling arts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible container as taught by Tam with film seal as taught by Schwartz to protect the interior contents from exposure to microbes and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Tam teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the film seal is made from a material selected from polyethylene (Schwartz, col. 6, lns. 45-56).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-12, and 19-20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments presented on pages 6-7 of the amendment, filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the disclose of Sheerin with the disclosure of Beland, and that doing so would render the disclosure of Sheerin unsatisfactory for its intended purpose with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1). See rejection above.
In the arguments presented on pages 7-8 of the amendment, filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant argues that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success for applying the method of pasteurizing maple sap as taught by Beland to the paint and stain compositions as taught by Sheerin since the composition of maple sap is vastly different than architectural coating compositions with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the art Tam et al. (US 20200164390 A1). See rejection above.
Conclusion
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 NEBYATE S SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights