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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tactile feedback member” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al. (US 20150060568. Johnson hereinafter. IDS provided by the Applicant on 6/18/2025).
With respect to claim 1, Johnson discloses a spray gun cup receptacle (60. Fig. 1-10B) comprising an open end (106) for (capable of) receiving a liner within a cavity; a base end (at 104) opposite the open end, the base end being positionable with respect to a work surface with the open end facing upwards such that a base (horizontal) plane passing through the base end is parallel to the work surface; a sidewall (100) surrounding the cavity and connecting the open end to the base end; one or more apertures (the opened top 106, 102 and 70) disposed within the sidewall through which the cavity is visible from outside the spray gun cup receptacle; at least one or more apertures having a perimeter (of 102) defined by a (void cylindrical) portion of the sidewall; and a tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion (110, 108 and the unmarked projection on 100 (See Fig. 6C of Johnson with additional annotations below)) extending radially-outwardly from the sidewall, the tactile feedback member positioned on the sidewall directly adjacent the perimeter of one of the one or more apertures, wherein the tactile feedback member allows a user to know (by touching), without looking at the spray gun cup receptable, that an area adjacent an aperture is being gripped.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shultz et al. (US 9174231. Shultz hereinafter) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20150060568. Johnson hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Shultz discloses a spray gun cup receptacle (Fig. 3A) comprising an open end (at 52A) for receiving a liner (42) within a cavity; a base end (at 41) opposite the open end, the base end being positionable with respect to a work surface with the open end facing upwards such that a base (horizontal) plane passing through the base end is parallel to the work surface; a sidewall (from the open end to 41) surrounding the cavity and connecting the open end to the base end; one or more apertures (41 and the top opening) disposed within the sidewall through which the cavity is visible from outside the spray gun cup receptacle; at least one or more apertures having a perimeter (of 41) defined by a (void cylindrical) portion of the sidewall; and a tactile feedback member (peripheral edges of 41. See enlarged Fig. 3 with additional annotations below) positioned on the sidewall directly adjacent the perimeter of one of the one or more apertures, wherein the tactile feedback member allows a user to know (by touching), without looking at the spray gun cup receptable, that an area adjacent an aperture is being gripped.
Shultz fails to disclose wherein the tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion extending radially-outwardly from the sidewall.
However, Johnson teaches a spray gun cup receptacle (60. Fig. 1-10B) comprising an open end (106) for (capable of) receiving a liner (200 and can 12-12E) within a cavity; a base end (at 104) opposite the open end, the base end being positionable with respect to a work surface with the open end facing upwards such that a base (horizontal) plane passing through the base end is parallel to the work surface; a sidewall (100) surrounding the cavity and connecting the open end to the base end; one or more apertures (102) disposed within the sidewall through which the cavity is visible from outside the spray gun cup receptacle; at least one or more apertures having a perimeter (of 102) defined by a (void cylindrical) portion of the sidewall; and a tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion (110 and the unmarked projection on 100 (See enlarged Fig. 6C with additional annotations below)) extending radially-outwardly from the sidewall, the tactile feedback member positioned on the sidewall directly adjacent the perimeter of one of the one or more apertures, wherein the tactile feedback member allows a user to know (by touching), without looking at the spray gun cup receptable, that an area adjacent an aperture is being gripped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, as taught by Johnson, to Shultz’s tactile feedback member, in order to enhance better gripping of the receptacle by the user (Figs. 6A-6C and paragraphs [0047]-[0049]).
With respect to claim 2, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 1 wherein two apertures are divided one (41 at sidewall) above (bottom 41) the other by a (vertical and horizontal) brace member (See Fig. 3A with additional annotations below), wherein at least a (vertical) portion of the brace member is disposed at a brace member angle (See Fig. 3A with additional annotations below) a relative to the base plane, the brace member angle a being greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees.
With respect to claim 3, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 2 wherein the brace member defines a brace member trajectory about the cavity, the brace member trajectory comprising an ellipse that is not a circle (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
With respect to claim 4, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 2 wherein the brace member angle α is at least (more than) 2 degrees.
With respect to claim 5, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz and Johnson discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 4 except for wherein the brace member angle α is less than or equal to 30 degrees.
However, a change in form or shape (making the receptacle with smaller brace member angle) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
With respect to claim 6, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 1 wherein the open end comprises receptacle connection structure (52A) to permit a lid member (44) to be secured to the open end.
With respect to claim 7, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 6 wherein the receptacle connection structure permits the lid member to be secured by one of: a threaded connection (threads 52A), helical wedge connection, a snap-fit connection, a push-fit connection, a twist-lock connection, a clip connection, a strap connection, or combinations thereof.
With respect to claim 8, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses the spray gun cup receptacle of claim 1 wherein the sidewall comprises one or more generally (two) vertical support members intersecting the brace member (Figs. 3A).
With respect to claim 10, Shultz’s spray gun cup receptacle modified by Johnson’s tactile feedback member comprising a protrusion, Shultz further discloses a spray gun cup (40, 42 and 44) comprising a spray gun cup receptacle according to claim 1; and a liner (42) positioned in the cavity, the liner comprising an open (top) end corresponding to the open end of the spray gun cup receptacle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shultz in view of Johnson and further in view of Kosmyna et al. (US 20060283861).
With respect to claim 11, Shultz and Johnson discloses the spray gun cup of claim 10 except for volumetric indicia position to be visible through the apertures of the sidewall and indicating a volume of contents of the liner.
However, Kosmyna et al. teach a spray gun (Figs. 1-17) with a liner (55) having volumetric indicia (230) position to be visible through the transparent wall and indicate a volume of contents of the liner.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of volumetric indicia , as taught by Kosmyna et al., to Shultz’s liner, in order to provide measurement ([0062]) and indicate a volume of contents of the liner.
PNG
media_image2.png
410
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
392
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference or combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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 O. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 4, 2026