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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, 16, 18 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 the plurality of discrete nozzles (col. 2, lines 63-64) includes a plurality of a first-type of nozzle,
wherein each of the plurality of the first-type of nozzles defines a first-type orifice having a proximal inlet and a distal outlet (col. 5, lines 8-14), the distal outlet has an oblong shape (col. 5, lines 15-16),
wherein the first-type of orifice of each of the plurality of first-type nozzles flares (col. 5, lines 17-19 & Fig. 7) from the proximal inlet to the distal outlet, and
wherein at least two of the plurality of first-type nozzles have distal outlets of different sizes and proximal inlets of different sizes (abstract & Fig. 5).
Re claims 2 & 14, Woltjen discloses the oblong shape comprises an oval shape (col. 5, lines 15-16).
Re claims 4, 9 & 16, Woltjen shows at least one of the plurality of discrete nozzles is a second-type of nozzle defining a second-type orifice having a distal outlet with a circular shape (Fig. 4, 213).
Re claim 5, Woltjen shows the plurality of discrete nozzles (col. 2, lines 63-64) comprises a plurality of the second-type of nozzles.
Re claims 8 & 18, Woltjen shows the distal outlets of the at least two first-type of nozzles have the same shapes (col. 5, lines 15-16).
Re claims 10 & 19, Woltjen discloses at least one of the proximal inlets is oblong (col. 5, lines 14-15).
Re claim 11, Woltjen discloses at least one of the proximal inlets 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 rotatably coupled (Fig. 1, 127/129/131) to the distal end of a spray gun body, and
a plurality of discrete nozzles (co. 2, lines 63-64) on the plate body including a plurality of a first-type of nozzles, the plurality of discrete nozzles configured to be selectively and individually positioned in communication with a 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 each of the plurality of the first-type of nozzles defines a first-type orifice having a proximal inlet and a distal outlet (col. 5, lines 8-14), the distal outlet having an oblong shape (col. 5, lines 15-16),
wherein the first-type orifice flares (col. 5, lines 17-19 & Fig. 7) from the proximal inlet to the distal outlet, and
wherein, at least two of the plurality of the first-type of nozzles have distal outlets of different sizes and proximal inlets of different sizes (abstract & Fig. 5).
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 and 15 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.
Claim 6 is 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 6, Woltjen discloses all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach each of the first-type of nozzle is disposed between two of the second-type of nozzles about the rotational axis.
However, Viering et al. show first-type nozzles (clm 1 – “oblong” – see annotated figure) where each first-type nozzle is disposed between two second-type nozzles (clm 4 – “circular” – see annotated figure) about the rotational axis (Viering – see annotated figure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each first-type nozzle disposed between two second-type nozzles, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70. Further, no criticality is apparent for the claimed limitation.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woltjen (US Pat No 6,105,882) in view of Haftke (GB 762210 A).
Re claims 7 & 17, Woltjen disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach at least two of the plurality of the first-type of nozzles has proximal inlets of different shapes.
However Haftke shows a rotatable nozzle face with a plurality of a first-type of nozzle (Fig. 4, 17’, 17”) having proximal inlets of different shapes (Figs. 4-5; p. 3, lines 23-26).
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 have the nozzles of Woltjen have inlets of different shapes as taught by Haftke to provide a stream angle and configuration which may be the most economical and satisfactory for the particular purpose (Haftke – p. 1, lines 29-34).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s argument that the applied art does not teach a plurality of the first-type of nozzles having an oblong shape or the first-type orifice flaring from the inlet to the outlet, and at least two of the first-type of nozzles having outlets of different sizes and inlets of different sizes; Woltjen discloses that the nozzles can be oblong or circular and that the orifices can flare as well as being differing diameters as disclosed above.
In light of these remarks, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
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 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
Prosecution Insights