DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on February 20, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 10, and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to pages 6-7 of the Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues that Petrie et al. do not disclose, suggest, or teach a spray gun having an integral socket for non-threaded engagement with a connector means. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. the spray gun of Petrie et al. discloses that an integral socket (34, in accordance with Merriam-Webster, the term “integral” is defined as “formed as a unit with another part”. As shown in Fig. 6, the element 34 is formed with the spray gun as a unit) arranged for non-threaded engagement with co-operating connector means for releasably securing the reservoir to the spray gun (Fig. 3 shows the top portion of 34 is non-threadedly engaged with the connector means 20 and Para. [0020]). As a result, the argument is not persuasive.
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: “co-operating connector means” in claim 1 is not being treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the term “means” is modified by “connector” for performing the claimed function.
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.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10-14, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Petric et al. (US 2002/0134861).
With regard to claim 1, Petric discloses a liquid spraying apparatus comprising a spray gun (11) and a reservoir (12) for a liquid to be sprayed, the reservoir(12) having an outlet (at 18) connectable to the spray gun (11) to permit the liquid to be withdrawn from the reservoir in use, and the spray gun having an integral socket (34) arranged for non-threaded engagement with co-operating connector means for releasably securing the reservoir to the spray gun (Fig. 3 shows the details of the connector means 20 and Para. [0020]), wherein the co-operating connector means (20) on the reservoir (12) comprises a tubular coupling member (24 in conjunction with 49) that is a push-fit in the socket (34), the coupling member (24/49) having a first portion (43) that provides a fluid-tight connection between the coupling member and the socket (Fig. 3), and a second portion (52) that is co-operable with the spray gun externally of the socket (34) to inhibit rotation of the coupling member in the socket without restricting relative axial movement between the coupling member and the socket to engage/disengage the coupling member (Para. [0020]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the coupling member (24/49) has a through bore leading to an inlet of the spray gun (11, Fig. 3) and the outlet (at 18) from the reservoir communicates with the inlet via the through bore when the reservoir is connected to the spray gun for delivering liquid to the spray gun in use (Fig .3).
With regard to claim 5, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the socket and/or coupling member is/are provided with one or more sealing rings (43).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the first portion of the coupling member (43) is provided with one or more circumferentially extending ribs (43) that form a fluid tight seal with the socket (Para. [0020]).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the coupling member (24/49) is an insert separate from the reservoir (12) and the reservoir is connectable to the insert (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 10, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Petric further discloses that the insert (34/49) is a plastics moulding (“stiff polymeric material”, see Para. [0018-0019]).
With regard to claim 11, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Petric further discloses that a set of interchangeable inserts is provided allowing fitment of the inserts to provide the socket with any desired connector formation (“any of a number of different types of connectors can be used between the adapters 20 and 34”, see Para. [0024]).
With regard to claim 12, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Petric further discloses that the second portion (52) of the insert is provided with a cut-out portion (Fig. 3 shows the cut-out portion of 52) and the spray gun has a formation (Fig. 4) externally of the socket (34) that is received in the cut-out portion to inhibit rotation of the insert in the socket (Para. [0020]).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the coupling member (24/49) is integral with the outlet from the reservoir (integrated by the groove 32 and lip 18, see Para. [0019]).
With regard to claim 14, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the reservoir (12) is provided with a disposable container that can be thrown away after use (cup 12 can be disposable and thrown away after use).
With regard to claim 17, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Petric further discloses that the spray gun comprises any one of a gravity fed, suction fed or pressure fed spray gun (Fig. 6).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petric in view of Kurowski (US 4,978,072).
With regard to claim 3, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Petric does not disclose that the spray gun (11) has a body and the socket (34) is recessed in the body of the spray gun.
Kurowski teaches a spraying apparatus comprising a spray gun (10) has a body and a socket (72) is recessed in the body of the spray gun (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device Petric, by incorporating the socket (72) recessed in the body of spray gun as taught by Kurowski, since doing so would be a mere reversal of such connection, so the socket inserted into the body of the spray gun, was held to be an obvious modification.
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petric in view of Kurowski as applied in claim 3, and further in view of Kazarian et al. (US 5,685,351)
With regard to claim 4, the device of Petric as modified by Kurowski discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 3 above. However, Petric does not disclose that the first portion of the coupling member and socket are tapered so that the first portion is an interference friction fit in the socket to retain the reservoir on the spray gun.
Kazarian teaches an apparatus (10) has a coupling member and socket are tapered so that a portion is an interference friction fit in the socket to retain funnel and the container (Fig. 1).
it is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Kazarian and the instant invention are directed to transportation of fluid by gravity feed. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Kazarian is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device Petric, by employing the coupling member and socket into a tapered form as taught by Kazarian, since doing so would facilitate the alignment between the reservoir and the socket during installation.
Claims 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petric in view of Rothrum (US 2003/0006311 A1).
With regard to claim 8, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Petric further discloses that the insert (24/49) is arranged to convert the socket (34) for connection to the outlet from the reservoir, except threaded connection.
Rothrum teaches a liquid spraying apparatus comprising an insert (40) is arranged to convert a socket (54) for threaded connection (45a/45b) to the outlet from the reservoir (14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device Petric, by replacing the connection with the thread connection (45a/45b) as taught by Rothrum, since doing so would be a simple substitution of one known element (threads) for another (groove) to obtain predictable results is one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 B).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Petric as modified by Rothrum discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 7 above. Petric in view of Rothrum further discloses that the outlet from the reservoir (12 of Rothrum) is connected to an internally threaded portion of the insert (Para. [0033] of Rothrum).
With regard to claim 15, the device of Petric discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 14 above. However Petric does not disclose that the reservoir comprises an outer container and an inner container, the inner container being collapsible as liquid is withdrawn from the reservoir and separate from the outer container so that the inner container can be removed and thrown away after use.
Rothrum teaches a liquid spraying apparatus comprising a reservoir (12) comprises an outer container (13) and an inner container (20), the inner container being collapsible as liquid is withdrawn from the reservoir (Para. [0027]) and separate from the outer container so that the inner container can be removed and thrown away after use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device Petric, by incorporating the reservoir (12) including the outer container (13) and the inner container (12) as taught by Rothrum, doing so would provide the flexible liner within the cavity in the container can be used as a receptacle for measuring and mixing two or more component liquids for the mixture to be sprayed, and markings or indicia are provided on the side of the container that enable the volume of the contents of the container to be determined, which can facilitate measuring the needed amounts of those component liquids (Para. [0003]).
With regard to claim 16, the device of Petric as modified by Rothrum discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 15 above. Petric further discloses that the outer container has an air vent (58) at the end remote from the connection to the spray gun to allow air to enter as liquid is withdrawn from the inner container in use.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,890,636 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant claim invention and the claim invention of ‘636 share the limitations such as a liquid spraying apparatus comprising a spray gun and a reservoir for a liquid to be sprayed, the reservoir having an outlet connectable to the spray gun to permit the liquid to be withdrawn from the reservoir in use, and the spray gun having an integral socket arranged for non-threaded engagement with co-operating connector means for releasably securing the reservoir to the spray gun, wherein the co-operating connector means on the reservoir comprises a tubular coupling member that is a push-fit in the socket, the tubular coupling member having a first portion that provides a fluid-tight connection between the tubular coupling member and the socket, and a second portion that is co-operable with the spray gun externally of the socket to inhibit rotation of the tubular coupling member in the socket without restricting relative axial movement between the tubular coupling member and the socket to engage/disengage the tubular coupling member.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 on 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights