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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species II, figures 8-15 and claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
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 5, 6, 9, 13-20 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.
The term “conventional” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional” is not defined by the claim, 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. Applicant’s specification provides examples for the term “convention” but these examples range from something simply being “narrow” to something being “circular” and as such the inclusion of anything and everything in that range renders the use of the term in describing the claimed nozzles indefinite.
Claim 6 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being indefinite.
The term “conventional” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “conventional” is not defined by the claim, 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. Applicant’s specification provides examples for the term “convention” but these examples range from something simply being “narrow” to something being “circular” and as such the inclusion of anything and everything in that range renders the use of the term in describing the claimed nozzles indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the spray gun body" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear as to what “spray gun body” is being referred to in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the fluid passage" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear as to what “fluid passage” is being referred to in the claim.
Claims 14-20 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to being dependent upon claim 13.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Woltjen (US Pat No 6,105,882).
Re claim 1, Woltjen shows a spray gun applicator (Fig. 1) comprising: a spray gun body (Fig. 1) configured to dispense a flowable material at a distal end of the spray gun body, the spray gun body including a housing (Fig. 1) and a fluid passage in the housing through which the flowable material is dispensed (col. 2, lines 45-46); and a nozzle plate (Figs. 4, 5, & 7 – 211) rotatably coupled (Fig. 1, 127/129/131) to the distal end of the spray gun body, the nozzle plate including a plate body (211) and a plurality of discrete nozzles (co. 2, lines 63-64) on the plate body configured to be selectively and individually positioned in communication with the fluid passage of the spray gun body by rotating the nozzle plate relative to the distal end of the spray gun body about a rotational axis (col. 3, lines 31-33), wherein at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a wide nozzle defining an orifice having a proximal inlet and a distal outlet (col. 5, lines 8-14), wherein the orifice flares (col. 5, lines 17-19 & Fig. 7) from the proximal inlet to the distal outlet, and wherein the distal outlet has an oblong shape (col. 5, lines 15-16).
Re claims 2 & 14, Woltjen discloses the distal outlet has an oval shape (col. 5, lines 15-16).
Re claim 4, Woltjen shows at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a conventional nozzle defining an orifice having a distal outlet with a circular shape (Fig. 4, 213).
Re claims 10 & 19, Woltjen discloses the proximal inlet of the orifice is oblong (col. 5, lines 14-15).
Re claim 11, Woltjen discloses the proximal inlet of the orifice is circular (Figs. 4 & 5).
Re claim 13, Woltjen shows a nozzle plate (Figs. 4, 5 & 7) for a spray gun applicator, the nozzle plate comprising: a plate body (211) configured to be rotatable coupled (Fig. 1, 127/129/131) to the distal end of the spray gun body, and a plurality of discrete nozzles (co. 2, lines 63-64) on the plate body configured to be selectively and individually positioned in communication with the fluid passage of the spray gun body by rotating the nozzle plate relative to the distal end of the spray gun body about a rotational axis (col. 3, lines 31-33), wherein at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a wide nozzle defining an orifice having a proximal inlet and a distal outlet (col. 5, lines 8-14), wherein the orifice flares (col. 5, lines 17-19 & Fig. 7) from the proximal inlet to the distal outlet, and wherein the distal outlet has an oblong shape (col. 5, lines 15-16).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 3, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltjen (US Pat No 6,105,882) in view of Weaver (US Pat No 4,403,735).
Re claims 3 & 15, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a stadium shape.
However, Weaver shows a nozzle with multiple nozzles including a distal outlet that has a stadium shape (Fig. 3, 5a).
The substitution of one known element (outlet shape in Woltjen) for another (outlet shape as shown in Weaver) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the outlet shape shown in Weaver would have yielded predictable results, namely, a spraying outlet in Woltjen to eject fluid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a stadium shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed shape.
Re claim 16, Woltjen as modified by Weaver shows at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a conventional nozzle defining an orifice having a distal outlet with a circular shape (Woltjen - Fig. 4, 213).
Claims 5-9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltjen (US Pat No 6,105,882) in view of Viering et al. (DE 202004008173 U1).
Re claim 5, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the plurality of discrete nozzles comprises a plurality of the wide nozzles and a plurality of the conventional nozzles.
However, Viering et al. show a spray gun applicator (Fig. 3) including a plurality of discrete nozzles (Fig. 7) comprising a plurality of wide nozzles (41) and a plurality of conventional nozzles (41).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plurality of wide nozzles and a plurality of conventional nozzles, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claim 6, Woltjen as modified by Viering et al. show each wide nozzle is disposed between two conventional nozzles about the rotational axis (Viering – see annotated figure).
PNG
media_image1.png
625
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claims 7 & 17, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the wide nozzle comprises at least two wide nozzles, wherein the distal outlets of the at least two wide nozzles have different sizes.
However, Viering et al. show a spray gun applicator including two wide nozzles (see annotated figure), wherein the distal outlets of the at least two wide nozzles have different sizes (see annotated figure – the lower wide nozzle is shown as larger than the upper wide nozzle).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two wide nozzles, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
Re claims 8 & 18, Woltjen as modified by Viering et al. show the distal outlets of the at least two wide nozzles have the same shapes (Viering – see annotated figure).
Re claim 9, Woltjen as modified by Viering et al. show at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a conventional nozzle defining an orifice having a distal outlet with a circular shape (Woltjen – Fig. 4).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltjen (US Pat No 6,105,882) in view of Piggott (US Pat No 3,516,611).
Re claim 12, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach the nozzle plate further includes pockets at a proximal side of the nozzle plate body, each of the pockets in fluid communication with the proximal inlet of a corresponding one of the discrete nozzles, wherein the spray gun body further includes a barrel defining the fluid passage, and a tip portion in which a distal end of the barrel is received to support the distal end of the barrel, wherein each pocket is configured to receive the tip portion such that the tip portion nests within the pocket.
However, Piggott shows a spray gun applicator (Fig. 1) including a nozzle plate (23) which further includes pockets (42) at a proximal side of the nozzle plate body, each of the pockets in fluid communication with the proximal inlet of a corresponding one of the discrete nozzles (31), wherein the spray gun body (20) further includes a barrel (34) defining the fluid passage (37), and a tip portion (41) in which a distal end (at 41) of the barrel (34) is received to support the distal end (at 41) of the barrel (34), wherein each pocket (42) is configured to receive the tip portion (41) such that the tip portion (41) nests within the pocket (42).
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 have the motivation to modify the nozzle plate and spray gun body of Woltjen with the pockets, barrel and tip portion taught by Piggott to provide an alignment feature in order to hold the nozzle in a selected position (Piggott – col. 3, lines 1-7).
Re claim 20, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach pockets at a proximal side of the nozzle plate body, each of the pockets in fluid communication with the proximal inlet of a corresponding one of the discrete nozzles, wherein each pocket is configured to receive a tip portion of the spray gun body such that the tip portion nests within the pocket.
However, Piggott shows a spray gun applicator (Fig. 1) including pockets (42) at a proximal side of the nozzle plate body (23), each of the pockets in fluid communication with the proximal inlet of a corresponding one of the discrete nozzles (31), wherein each pocket (42) is configured to receive a tip portion (41) of the spray gun body (20) such that the tip portion (41) nests within the pocket (42).
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 have the motivation to modify the nozzle plate and spray gun body of Woltjen with the pockets and tip portion taught by Piggott to provide an alignment feature in order to hold the nozzle in a selected position (Piggott – col. 3, lines 1-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-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 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 MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752