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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 11, 12, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker ‘463.
As to claim 1, Walker ‘463 discloses a reversible hydraulic nozzle 11 comprising: a front body section comprising a hydraulic orifice 62; and a rear body section comprising a rear opening 67; and a flange section 55 positioned between the front and the rear body section; and wherein the reversible hydraulic nozzle is configured to be in fluid communication with an outlet valve of a hydraulic device 10, see col. 1, lines 64-75, in each of a dispensing orientation Fig. 2 and a cleaning orientation Fig. 6; and wherein the flange section 55 is configured to engage with a fastener 37 of the hydraulic device in order that the fastener restricts movement of the reversible hydraulic nozzle relative to the outlet valve in each of the dispensing orientation and the cleaning orientation. See Fig. 1, 2 and 6 and col. 1 lines 64-75 and col. 3 lines 15-75.
As to claim 2, see Fig. 2.
As to claim 3, see Figs. 1 and 2 and col. 1, lines 64-75.
As to claim 7, see Figs. 1 and 6 and col. 1, lines 64-75.
As to claims 11 and 12, see front width/diameter at 50 of the front body section in Fig. 2 substantially same as rear width/diameter at 46 of rear body section in Fig. 6.
As to claims 20 and 21, see retention nut 37.
As to claim 22, see hydraulic device consisting of an airless sprayer which is a manufacturing tool.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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) 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker ‘463.
Walker ‘463 discloses all the featured elements of the instant invention, as discussed above, except for the first diameter range from about 0.1mm to 1.0mm, 0.1mm to 0.5mm and 0.2mm to 0.4mm and wherein a ratio of the second diameter to the first diameter is about 5:1 to 10:1 or is about 15:1 to 20:1.
As to claims 13-15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first diameter range from about 0.1mm to 1.0mm, 0.1mm to 0.5mm and 0.2mm to 0.4mm, since it has been held that wherein 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.II.A. In addition, the size of the first diameter would also depend on the type of spray droplet size desired for the airless sprayer.
As to claims 16 and 17, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a ratio of the second diameter to the first diameter is about 5:1 to 10:1 or is about 15:1 to 20:1, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(b).III. In addition, the ratio would depend on the amount of flow desired through the hydraulic nozzle for spraying purposes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 8-10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pinto et al ‘163 and Calder ‘857 show various types of reversible hydraulic nozzles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J GANEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4899. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5:30pm.
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.
STEVEN J. GANEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN J GANEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752