DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “cannister” is believed to be in error for --canister--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube 2009/0308946 in view of Speck 2020/0047211.
In regards to Independent Claims 1 and 19, Dube teaches a system (figure 2) for cleaning (cleaning solution in aerosol can 21, paragraph [0028]) a gun-style applicator (29) comprising: an adapter (25) having a first end (33), a second end (35), a body (27) extending from the first end to the second end (as shown in figure 4), and a bore extending through the body from the first end to the second end (bore through 25 shown in figure 4), the first end being configured to be coupled with an output port of an aerosol canister containing aerosolized cleaning material (33 coupled to 21 in figure 5, paragraph [0003]), the second end being configured to couple with a first end of a hose having a second end that is configured to be coupled with an input port of the gun-style applicator (second end of 25 coupled to hose 27 in figure 2, where hose is shown coupled to gun-style applicator 29), the first end of the adapter comprising configured to engage a valve (39) disposed in the output port of the aerosol canister (as shown in figure 5) when the first end of the adapter is coupled with the output port of the aerosol canister (connection of 33 to 21 in figure 5); and wherein actuation of a trigger of the gun-style applicator when the valve is engaged and the first and second ends of the hose are coupled to the second end of the adapter and to the output port of the gun-style applicator, respectively, causes the aerosolized cleaning material to flow through the bore of the adapter, through the hose, through an internal portion of the gun-style applicator and out of a nozzle of the gun-style applicator (inserting the canister into the adapter opens the valve between the canister 21 and adapter 25, paragraph [0023], and pulling the trigger shown on the spray gun 29 will allow flow from tube 27 to pass through the outlet nozzle of the spray gun 29, where spray guns operate by pulling the trigger, as shown in the figures, to open a valve in the spray gun to allow a flow of fluid to exit the nozzle of the spray gun, where continuing to actuate the trigger will allow flow to continue to pass from the canister to the nozzle of the spray gun). However, Dube does not teach a second valve in the adapter that engages with the valve in the outlet port of the aerosol canister. Speck teaches an adapter (200 to 206 in figure 3) connected to an aerosol canister (90) for cleaning a gun-style applicator (300) with a valve (shutoff valve 204) in the adapter that engages with the valve (96) of the canister (as shown in figure 3, where flow from 90 passes through valve 96, then valve 204 before traveling to spray gun 300). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use the shut-off valve of Speck in the adapter of Dube, in order to allow control of the fluid passing from the canister to the spray gun (paragraph [0010]). Control of fluid entering the spray gun from the canister is an advantage of the adapter of Dube, which will release fluid from the canister into the spray gun as soon as the adapter is coupled to the canister.
Regarding Dependent Claims 2 and 3, Dube in view of Speck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Dube further teaches a bore through the adapter (bore shown through 25 in figure 4). However, Dube in view of Speck does not teach that the adapter comprises first and second coaxial portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the single piece adapter of Dube in view of Speck as two portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Regarding Dependent Claims 5 and 6, Dube in view of Speck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Dube further teaches a bore through the adapter (bore shown through 25 in figure 4). However, Dube in view of Speck does not teach that the adapter comprises first, second and third coaxial portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to make the single piece adapter of Dube in view of Speck as three portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)).
Regarding Dependent Claim 20, Dube in view of Speck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Dube in view of Speck does not teach that the canister is configured to hold between 12 and 24 ounces of cleaning material when full. Speck teaches using a 20 ounce can (90, paragraph [0030]) for the cleaning material (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use a canister of 20 ounces as taught by Speck for the method of Dube in view of Speck, in order to apply a known technique (in this case, using a 20 ounce canister for a cleaning fluid for a spray gun) to a known device (the cleaning method of Dube in view of Speck) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (in this case, providing an adequate volume of cleaning fluid to clean the spray gun), see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. MPEP 2143 I (D).
Claim(s) 4-5, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Speck as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of May 2002/0109019.
Regarding Dependent Claims 4-5, 8-9, Dube in view of Speck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Dube in view of Speck does not teach the adapter includes first and second portions perpendicular to each other, with a third portion including a bend between the first and second portions. May teaches an adapter (see figure 2 below) with a first portion (first portion in figure 2 below), a second portion (second portion in figure 2 below), and a third portion with a 90 degree turn between the first and second portions (third portion in figure 2 below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use bend the adapter 90 degrees and use three portions for the adapter of Dube in view of Speck, as taught by May, in order to apply a known technique (using a multiple piece adapter with a 90 degree bend) to a known device (the adapter of Dube in view of Speck) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (in this case, changing the mounting angle of the adapter to accommodate the position of either the spray gun or the canister), see KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. MPEP 2143 I (D).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of May
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Speck as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Winder 5,383,580.
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, Dube in view of Speck teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Dube further teaches the adapter is threaded to output port of the canister (threading of canister 21 and adapter 25 shown in figure 5). However, Dube in view of Speck does not teach that the two portions are threadingly engaged. Winder teaches using an adapter (24) where two portions (26 and 28) are threadingly engaged (screw-threaded, Col. 3, ll. 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to screw thread the two portions of Dube in view of Speck together, as taught by Winder, in order to permit the assembly to be readily and securely effected (abstract).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Speck and May as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Winder.
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Dube in view of Speck and May teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above. However, Dube in view of Speck and May does not teach that the first and second portions are threadingly engaged to the first portion. Winder teaches using an adapter (24) where two portions (26 and 28) are threadingly engaged (screw-threaded, Col. 3, ll. 11-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use screw threading to connect the portions of Dube in view of Speck and May together, as taught by Winder, in order to permit the assembly to be readily and securely effected (abstract).
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Dube in view of Speck, May and Winder teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Dube further teaches the first end of the adapter is configured to threadingly engage the output port of the aerosol canister (threading of canister 21 and adapter 25 shown in figure 5).
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Dube in view of Speck, May and Winder teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above, and Dube further teaches the second end of the adapter is configured to threadingly engage the first end of the hose (figure 4 shows internal threading on 35 for threadingly engaging the hose 27 as shown in figure 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that correcting the claim objection made to claim 1 distinguishes claim 1 from the cited art. The rejection made with the cited art in the action mailed 10/23/2025 was made assuming the claim objection was corrected.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., small aerosol canisters, a threaded basket configured to engage a standard aerosol can lip, a valve-to-valve engagement that automatically open upon coupling, a portable, disposable cleaning system, using consumer aerosol cans, a check-valve at the adapter first end, a self-opening valve-to-valve arrangement) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Dube is structurally incompatible with the claimed adapter because the valve is manually actuated. The claims do not recite that the valve is not manually actuated.
Applicant argues that combining Speck with Dube would require substantial redesign and not routine optimization of the system of Dube. Speck is relied upon to teach placing a shut-off valve in a line between a canister and gun-style applicator for cleaning the applicator, with the advantage being controlling flow through the line. The rejection does not rely upon routine optimization case law of In re Antonie or In re Aller.
Applicant argues that the combination of Dube and Speck does not teach an aerosol can interface or a hose connection. Dube is relied upon to teach an aerosol can (21, paragraph [0016]) and a hose connection (27, paragraph [0016]) in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant argues that May is not analogous to Dube or Speck and cannot be relied upon to teach an adapter with two perpendicular portions. May discloses an adapter (50 and 54) between a gun style applicator (at 50) and a fluid source (56, receiving fluid 300), which is analogous to the adapter between the aerosol can and gun-style applicator of Dube.
Applicant argues that Winder is not analogous to the system of Dube. Winder teaches an adapter for an aerosol can, which is analogous to the adapter connected between the aerosol can and gun-style applicator of Dube. Winder is relied upon to teach using threads to connect components of an adapter. It is not claimed that the threads are designed for aerosol can lips.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 M SUTHERLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-1902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 M SUTHERLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights