Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 4-11-24 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the brief description of drawings section of the specification, there is a description of drawing figures 10E and 10G but there is no description of a drawing figure 10F and it is unclear to whether there is to be an additional drawing corresponding to figure 10F or if figure 10G should be made figure 10F.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because there is no drawing figure 10F, see specification objections detailed earlier. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 24, 28 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: in each of claims 24, 28 and 35 “latterly” should be changed to - -laterally- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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 19-25, 27-29 and 34-36 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.
Claim 19 is 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 phrase “vaccinated and/or administered probiotics” renders the claim indefinite in that as seen in the preamble of parent claim 18, a method for vaccination is detailed and given the “or” portion of the “and/or” clause in claim 19 when only probiotics are being administered it is unclear to how the animals are being vaccinated when only probiotics are being administered.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the form" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 2 and line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 20. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in lines 2 and 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 23 lacks antecedent basis for “the extenders” in line 2.
Claim 24 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 20. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in line 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 24 lacks antecedent basis for “the air supply connection” in lines 2-3.
Claim 25 is 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. It is unclear to whether the shrouds detailed in line 3 of claim 25 is the same or different than the primary and secondary shrouds detailed in line 2 of claim 25. It is recommended that applicant change “the shrouds” to - -the primary and secondary shrouds- -.
Claim 27 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 2 and line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 18. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in lines 2 and 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 27 lacks antecedent basis for “the extenders” in line 2.
Claim 28 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 18. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in line 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 28 lacks antecedent basis for “the air supply connection” in lines 2-3.
Claim 29 is 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. It is unclear to whether the shrouds detailed in line 3 of claim 29 is the same or different than the primary and secondary shrouds detailed in line 2 of claim 29. It is recommended that applicant change “the shrouds” to - -the primary and secondary shrouds- -.
Claim 34 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 2 and line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 30. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in lines 2 and 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 34 lacks antecedent basis for “the extenders” in line 2.
Claim 35 is 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. It is unclear to whether the atomizer detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the liquid atomizer detailed in parent claim 30. It is recommended that applicant change “the atomizer” in line 3 to - -the liquid atomizer- -. Further, claim 35 lacks antecedent basis for “the air supply connection” in lines 2-3.
Claim 36 is 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. It is unclear to whether the shrouds detailed in line 3 of claim 36 is the same or different than the primary and secondary shrouds detailed in line 2 of claim 36. It is recommended that applicant change “the shrouds” to - -the primary and secondary shrouds- -.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 18, 26, 30-33 and 37 are allowed.
Claims 18-37 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to spray applicators in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 4,449,968 to Peterson – shows spray applicator
U.S. Pat. No. 4,850,997 to Dubose – shows spray applicator
U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104485 to Lewis et al. – shows spray applicator
U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0046049 to Ricciardelli et al. – shows spray applicator
U.S. Pat. No. 6,910,446 to Johnston – shows spray applicator
U.S. Pat. No. 10,973,898 to Lee – shows spray applicator
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643