DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/6/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the structures of the different species is irrelevant to the function of the device. This is not found persuasive because the two species require a different field of search, where the one piece adapter requires searching for an adapter that is manufactured integrally, and the multi-piece adapter requires search for an adapter with multiple pieces connected together with screw type threads.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the first end of the adapter comprising a valve configured to engage a valve disposed in the output port of the adapter as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings (particularly figures 1-6) are objected to because solid black shading and grayscale are not permitted. See 37 CFR 1.84(l) and 1.84(m). Appropriate correction is required.
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
(m) Shading . The use of shading in views is encouraged if it aids in understanding the invention and if it does not reduce legibility. Shading is used to indicate the surface or shape of spherical, cylindrical, and conical elements of an object. Flat parts may also be lightly shaded. Such shading is preferred in the case of parts shown in perspective, but not for cross sections. See paragraph (h)(3) of this section. Spaced lines for shading are preferred. These lines must be thin, as few in number as practicable, and they must contrast with the rest of the drawings. As a substitute for shading, heavy lines on the shade side of objects can be used except where they superimpose on each other or obscure reference characters. Light should come from the upper left corner at an angle of 45°. Surface delineations should preferably be shown by proper shading. Solid black shading areas are not permitted, except when used to represent bar graphs or color.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the output port of the adapter” is believed to be in error for --the output port of the aerosol canister--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the canister” is believed to be in error for --the aerosol canister--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 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 term “about” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In Hamilton Products, Inc. v. O’neal, 492 F.Supp.2d 1328 (M.D. Fla. 2007), it was held that the combination of "greater than" and "about" or the combination of "less than" and "about", was indefinite because to give a measurement of “greater/less than about (or approximately)” is not intuitive, not common sense, and can reasonably lead to different results. The court reasoned that the word “about” can mean more or less than the stated value. Following the court’s reasoning, in the instant case, “between about 12 ounces and 24 ounces” can mean 11, 25, 8, etc, which all fall outside of the range 12 to 24. MPEP2173.05(b)(I) stated “When relative terms are used in claims wherein the improvement over the prior art rests entirely upon size or weight of an element in a combination of elements, the adequacy of the disclosure of a standard is of greater criticality”. In Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991) the court held that claims reciting "at least about" were invalid for indefiniteness where there was close prior art and there was nothing in the specification, prosecution history, or the prior art to provide any indication as to what range of specific activity is covered by the term "about."; MPEP2173.05(b)(II)(A). Applicant’s Specification fails to explicitly disclose the percentage range above and below the recited numerical value preceded with “about/approximately”; therefore, Applicant has failed to satisfy the greater criticality requirement of disclosing a standard for “about/approximately”. Accordingly, claims reciting a combination of the terms “between” and “about” are indefinite because they can reasonably lead to different results, are not intuitive, and not common sense. Additionally, the claims are indefinite because Applicant failed to disclose a standard for “about/approximately”.
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).
Conclusion
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