CTFR 18/454,201 CTFR 86495 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment This is a response to the amendment filed 4/24/2026. Claims 2-4, 8, 9, and 13 have been canceled and thus all rejections are withdrawn with respect to these claims. Claims 1, 5, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 41 have been amended. Claims 54-59 are added. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant details the system details of Reitz (US2014/0353398), Preston et al. (US 9,156,045), and the instant invention. Ultimately, Applicant argues Reitz teach external atomization, Preston teaches expelling on a single liquid, and the instant invention teaching internal atomizing of two distinct liquid via distinct flow paths. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller , 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner previously acknowledged these deficiencies and argued internal atomizing is well-known as an alternative to external atomization as evidenced by Preston et al., and would have been obvious to implement in all flow paths to implement a finer mist for smoother coatings. Applicant has not responded to such logic, nor explained why implementing for two distinct liquid flow paths presents a unique challenge or somehow destroys the previous motivation. Examiner notes Hochbrueckner (US 2018/0326321) explicitly teaches internal mixing of compressed air with two different fluid sources for atomization prior to combining the atomized fluid streams externally, thus indicating such dual liquid atomization is known. Examiner submits implementing such internal atomization in the system of Reitz would have been trivial and provided defined advantages as recited. Applicant has not responded to the argument directly and thus obviousness cannot be overcome. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 17 and 56-58 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 17 refers to “an air cap assembly” despite it already being introduced in Claim 1, upon which claim 17 depends. It is assumed this is the same air cap assembly as in claim 1 and should have antecedent language. Claims 56-58 depend from cancelled claims. Examiner assumes dependency on Claim 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 12, 14-18, 20, 41, 55 and 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz (US 2014/0353398) in view of Preston et al. (US 9,156,045) . Regarding Claims 1, 12, 20, and 41 Reitz teaches a spray gun assembly for applying a coating with plural components (See Abstract, teaching a spray gun for applying multiple fluid components), the spray gun assembly comprising: a nozzle [14] with a main atomizing outlet [28] and a fan air outlet [32] (See Figs. 1-2 and page 2, paragraph [0015], indicating the outlets/orifices cause atomization; all flow paths converge at the spray formation assembly [22], thus making this an air cap assembly as claimed, the remainder being the spray gun body; note neither the air cap assembly, nor spray gun body are defined as having a separate structure other than the other features described as making them up and thus these features create the structure of the air cap assembly and spray gun body, respectively, and labeling them adds little if any additional structure); a main pneumatic inlet [62] configured to receive compressed air from a compressed air source [80] (See Figs. 2 and page 2, paragraph [0019], teaching a compressed air tank as air supply [80] feeding inlet [62]); an atomizing air flow path between the main pneumatic inlet [62] and the main atomizing outlet [28] of the nozzle [14] (See Figs. 1-2, illustrating a central flow path by which the air clearly flows from tank [80] out outlet [28]); a fan air flow path between [98] the main pneumatic inlet [62] and the fan air outlet [32] of the nozzle [14] (See pages 2-3, paragraphs [0021]-[0022], wherein the air supply [80] power the fluid through the system, including out orifice [32], i.e. the fan air outlet); a colloidal feed inlet [40] in fluid communication with a gravity feed container [84] and configured to receive a component of the coating via gravity feed from the gravity feed container (See Fig. 2 and page 2, paragraph [0019], teaching gravity feeding second fluid from supply [82]; and note any feeding features in the spray guns of Figs. 1-2 are surely would have been obvious to incorporate in an individual spray gun since these features are explicitly taught in Reitz for these spray guns); the main atomizing outlet [28] in fluid communication with the colloidal feed inlet [40] and proximate the atomizing air flow path at the nozzle (See Fig. 2 and page 2, paragraph [0015], teaching the second fluid is emitted through main outlet [30] after joining through passage [38] and clearly illustrating a central flow path, i.e. the atomizing air flow path, by which the second fluid must flow from tank [84] to emit from outlet [30] and combining with main atomizing outlet externally proximate the nozzle; Examiner submits the external inlet [40] from which the second liquid leave the container region [82] is the colloidal feed outlet [40] and the internal connection between the source of the second fluid [82]); a pressurized feed inlet in fluid communication with a pressurized feed container and configured to receive a different component of the coating from the pressurized feed container; and a catalyst outlet [24] in fluid communication with the pressurized feed inlet and proximate the fan air flow path proximate the nozzle [14] (See page 2, paragraph [0015] and page 3, paragraphs [0021]-[0022], wherein the first fluid may be pressure fed through the system from an integrated source, i.e. at least rendering obvious a pressurized feed container of some sort, which is any source from which the first fluid is pressure fed; further the tube [34], i.e. the catalyst outlet, may feed the first material through from inside shaping orifice [32]; the first fluid is disposed into fan air flow path [98] in a passage to outlet [34] so as to be atomized via pressure via air from source [80]; however, Figs. 4-6 illustrate external atomization). Reitz teaches externally atomizing two separate fluids in separate location via compressed air and thus doesn’t teach an internal atomizing outlet in fluid communication with the atomizing air flow path or the catalyst outlet in fluid communication with the fan air flow path [98]. However, internal-atomizing, where the air and fluid mix prior to external nozzle emission, is a well-known alternative to externally atomizing streams in similar atomizing spray systems so as to create finer atomization that can create smoother more uniforms coatings (See, for example, Preston et al., col. 1, lines 20-24, col. 5, lines 57-67 and Figs. 1-4, indicating external and internal air mixing are known alternative wherein internal mixing creates a finer spray, the system using both external in Figs. 1-2 and internal in Figs. 3-4 in an otherwise identical system). Thus, since Reitz teaches two separately atomized streams, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize internal atomization as an alternative to external in each stream and internally-mix at the nozzles [34]/[32] and [28]/[30] for both the first and the second fluid, instead of an externally-mixing. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable alternative for the spraying system that is a well-known alternative atomization of streams to produce a finer mist, thus being desirable when smooth uniform coatings are prioritized over speed. As can be seen in Fig. 4 in Preston et al., such internal-mixing creates an internal atomizing outlet where the liquid exits orifice [16]. Likewise, moving the catalyst outlet [34] in Reitz back into the fan air flow path [98] would allow fluid communication between air [102] and first fluid [126] prior to exiting outlet [32] (See Fig. 4A). Doing so making both the internal atomizing outlet and catalyst outlet, and respective flow paths, configured to atomize as claimed. Reitz doesn’t explicitly recite “colloidal suspension” and “catalyst,” but teaches the first component may be an activator, which is synonymous with catalyst in a spraying context, and the second fluid (gravity fed) may be a paint, which are colloidal suspensions, e.g. latexes or suspended colloidal pigments. Further, in the spray gun assembly, these are materials worked on that are not part of the device itself. Note that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young , 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto , 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). An apparatus need merely be capable of performing the claimed functions on the claimed material worked on. Note Examiner submits Reitz teaches what is considered a colloidal suspension and a catalyst, but certainly teaches a capability to load such liquids into his device. However, these substances are also considered to satisfy the method of Claim 20 for the reasons above. Note Reitz also teaches mid-air mixing as described above and using compressed air, such as from source [80], to implement pressure feeding. With internal mixing as described above, implementing the device of Reitz will carry out the method of Claim 20. Regarding Claims 14, 15, 18, and 55, Reitz teaches air and fluid valve assemblies to regulate pressure and flow within the system (See page 2, paragraph [0018]). At the very least, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize such adjusters in each line to control air pressure and fluid flow as desired, such as in the atomizing air flow path, the fan air flow path, the colloidal flow path, and the catalyst flow path. Doing so would have predictably enabled a use to control air pressure and/or fluid flow within each path as desired. Such adjusters would have predictably allowed each path to flow as desired while ensured regulated flow of each fluid through each passage, thus allowing supply of predictable ratios as desired. Regarding Claim 16, Reitz the features are in the gun body (See Figs. 1-2), these defining said spray gun body as claimed. Regarding Claim 17, the flow path of the second fluid and the first fluid may be referred to as a “colloidal flow path” and a “catalyst flow path” respectively. Regarding Claim 59, Reitz teach the mixing causes the activating, thus necessarily making it occur after mixing to some extent, the sprayed material being a paint forming a coating (See page 3, paragraph [0003]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 6, 7, 54, 56, and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz and Larson et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of DE1014889 (wherein all textual citations are to the English translation provided) . Regarding Claims 5, 6, 7, 54, 56 and 58, Reitz and Larson et al. teach the assembly of claim 1 as described above. Reitz also teaches the compressed air may be connected to the gravity feed container [84] via line [89] to exert pressure and pump the second fluid/colloidal suspension, but fails to specifically teach recirculation via agitation. However, it is well-known in spray containers holding paint, such as container [84] in Reitz, that agitation is desirable and known to be implement via compressed air to an agitator, thus causes agitation that recirculates the fluid (See, for example, DE1014889, pages 1-4, paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0011], and [117], wherein the compressed air line [4] allows the compressed air to drive the agitator [5]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configured the device such that compressed air from line [89] drives and agitator as well as providing pumping pressure. Doing so would have predictably enabled mixing in the container [84], thus ensuring paint are well mixed with even coloring prior to application . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reitz and Larson et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Staunton et al. (US 2010/0098870) . Regarding Claims 10-11, Reitz and Larson et al. teach the assembly of claim 1 as described above. Reitz also teaches the compressed air may be connected to a container [84] via line [89] to exert pressure, but fails to teach a bladder. However, it is well-known to use bladders as container in paint spray mixers in order to facilitate such pressure feeding under compressed air. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time of invention to utilize a bladder connected to the compressed air supply [80] as an element of the pressurized feed container. Doing so would have predictably facilitated pressure feeding of the paint activator as is well-known in similar systems. Examiner submits any such pressurized feeding via the compressed air is a pump. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm. 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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. /SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 3 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 4 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 5 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 6 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 7 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 8 Art Unit: 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/454,201 Page 9 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights