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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on February 17th, 2026 is acknowledged. Three pages of amended claims were received on 2/17/2026. Claims 1, 3, 7, 12-13, and 16-18 have been amended.
The claims have been amended to overcome some previous drawing objections, however the drawings remain objected to as noted below. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections in the non-final rejection mailed 9/17/2025, however Claims 12 and 17 are now objected to as noted below. Claim 11 is no longer rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on applicant’s response and the updated claim interpretation noted below, however Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: #306 (See Fig. 3), #434 (See Fig. 4 and See Fig. 10), #602 (See Fig. 5 and See Fig. 6), #604 (See Fig. 6), #702 (See Fig. 7), #802 (See Fig. 8).
The drawings are also objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: #1002 (See Paragraph 0041 of the Specification).
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. 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
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 12 Line 10, “an nozzle base” should be revised to “a nozzle base” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 17 Line 14, “the flexible nozzle” should be revised to “the nozzle” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claim.
In Claim 17 Line 16, “the flexible nozzle” should be revised to “the nozzle” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the term “about” in Claim 11 is being interpreted based on applicant’s response submitted 2/17/2026 and Paragraph 0022 of the Specification which states “Also as described herein, the terms “substantially” and “about” are defined as at least close to (and includes) a given value or state (preferably within 10% of, more preferably within 1% of, and most preferably within 0.1% of)”. Therefore the term “about” in Claim 11 is being interpreted based on the specification as meaning “within 10% of”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2018/0078955 A1 to Paulsen et al. (“Paulsen”) in view of US PGPUB 2005/0143259 A1 to Newson (“Newson”), US PGPUB 2003/0019957 A1 to Titinet (“Titinet”), and US Patent 3,887,137 to Nakamura et al. (“Nakamura”).
As to Claim 1, Paulsen discloses a sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle) comprising:
a container (#17);
a pump (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing “suitable pumps”);
a nozzle base (See #20a in Fig. 3 and see the nozzle base shown in Annotated Fig. 14-Detail. The nozzle base is a lower portion of #20 that has bead #20a and does not include the stop);
a flexible nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the flexible nozzle is made up of #50, which is made of EPDM per Paragraph 0036 and is thus flexible to some extent),
the flexible nozzle made of a first material (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is made up of EPDM);
the flexible nozzle having
a fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a);
a conical fluid swirling chamber (#51a, See Annotated Fig. 8a and Paragraph 0035 disclosing that #51a is inwardly tapering thus it is conical. #51a is configured such that some amount of fluid swirling can occur in #51a, thus #51a can be considered a conical fluid swirling chamber); and
a spray orifice (#51b, See Annotated Fig. 8b and Paragraph 0035); and
a cap (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the cap is made up of #30 and #37);
wherein the cap secures to the base to retain the flexible nozzle (See Fig. 14 and Paragraph 0037),
wherein the flexible nozzle is configured to have a plurality of spray patterns (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14, and See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is deformable. Furthermore, when #50 is initially compressed by #20a, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the flexible nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50 in a state that is not fully sealed. Further compressing #50 with #20a will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent in a state that is further sealed. Compressing #50 with #20a to a sealed state will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to another extent.);
wherein the plurality of spray patterns are selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between the cap and the nozzle base (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is initially compressed by #20, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the flexible nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50 in a state that is not fully sealed. Further compressing #50 with #20 will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent in a state that is further sealed, thus multiple spray patterns can be selected from #50 by varying a compression force of #20a on #50).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the sprayer is a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle).
However, Newson discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0001-0003), wherein a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1) is used as an alternative to a vehicle sprayer (See Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 1 above such that it is a hand-held sprayer instead of a vehicle sprayer, as taught by Newson, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the sprayer to be carried by an operator and manually directed over targets being sprayed (See Newson Paragraph 0030 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen does not specifically disclose wherein the first material has a hardness of between 20 Shore A and 50 Shore A (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that the EPDM has a hardness of 50 Shore A, which is not “between” 20 Shore A and 50 Shore A as claimed).
However, Titinet discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0002-0004), a sprayer (See Fig. 1) comprising a flexible nozzle (#40) that is made of a first material (See Paragraph 0024 disclosing that #48 is made of an EPDM compound), wherein the first material has a hardness of 30 Shore A to 50 Shore A (See Paragraph 0024).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice per In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 1 above such that the first material has a hardness of between 20 Shore A and 50 Shore A by using the EPDM compound of Titinet with a hardness of 30 Shore A, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a suitable flexible nozzle material for spraying applications that can be injection molded (See Titinet Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Titinet as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the fluid inlet is a tangential fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the inlet is in line with the flexible nozzle and is not tangential).
However, Nakamura discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), a sprayer (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (#3 and #4) having a tangential fluid inlet (#1, See Figs. 1-2 and Col. 1 Lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Titinet as applied to Claim 1 above such that the fluid inlet of Paulsen is a tangential fluid inlet, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating swirling of fluid (See Nakamura Col. 2 Lines 1-5), thus helping obtain stabilized spray conditions (See Nakamura Col. 3 Lines 10-15).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the nozzle base and the cap are movable with respect to one another and wherein they may be moved with respect to one another to compress or uncompress the flexible nozzle (See Fig. 14. And Paragraphs 0031 and 0037. #20 and #37 are connected and disconnected from each other. When #20a is attached to #37, #50 is compressed. When #20a is detached from #37, #50 is uncompressed.).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 2 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein compressing the flexible nozzle alters a flow path of fluid through the flexible nozzle (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14, when #50 is compressed by #20a, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a flow path of fluid through the flexible nozzle to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50. Further compressing #50 will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path of fluid to some extent).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 2 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the flexible nozzle in an uncompressed state provides a first fluid spray pattern and wherein the flexible nozzle in a compressed state provides a second fluid spray pattern (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is not compressed by #20a, a first spray pattern will result when fluid is provided through #50. When #20a compresses #50, fluid will be provided from #20 to #50, and a shape of #50 will be altered to some extent such that the first spray pattern will be altered to some extent, resulting in a second fluid spray pattern).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 2 above, Paulsen further discloses the hand-held sprayer comprising a stop to limit inward movement of the cap (See Annotated Fig. 14-Detail, the stop is a portion on #20 that is above #20a and limits movement of #37 when #30a contacts the stop).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen further discloses the hand-held sprayer comprising a flow diverter (#56) to direct fluid flow to an outer periphery of the flexible nozzle (See Fig. 8a and Paragraph 0034, the flow diverter #56 diverts fluid flowing out of #50 in a radially outward direction thus #56 directs fluid flow in a radial direction towards an outer radial periphery of a lower end of #50).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the spray orifice is configured to expand to allow particles to pass through and the spray orifice is configured to return to its original position (See Paragraph 0036, the material of #50 is deformable under pressure and returns to its original shape when pressure is removed. Thus #50, including #51b, can expand to allow various types of particles to pass through and return to its original position).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Titinet further discloses wherein the flexible nozzle comprises rubber (See Paragraph 0024 disclosing a polypropylene/EPDM compound, which is a type of rubber).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 8 above, Titinet further discloses wherein the rubber is an EPDM rubber (See Paragraph 0024 disclosing a polypropylene/EPDM compound, which is a type of EPDM rubber).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the flexible nozzle has a solid cone spray pattern (See Paragraph 0040 disclosing that #30c generates a conical spray pattern. Furthermore, #50 has a conical cross-section. Therefore, #50 at least disperses fluid that results in a conical spray pattern, so #50 can be considered to have a solid cone spray pattern when fluid leaves the hand-held sprayer).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson, Titinet, and Nakamura as applied to Claim 1 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the hand-held sprayer has a pressure range at the flexible nozzle of between about 12 and 30 pounds per square inch (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing pressures increasing from 20 psi to 60 psi, thus the hand-held sprayer has a pressure at the flexible nozzle within the claimed range).
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura.
As to Claim 12, Paulsen discloses a sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle) comprising:
a container (#17);
a pump (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing “suitable pumps”);
a flexible nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the flexible nozzle is made up of #50, which is made of EPDM per Paragraph 0036 and is thus flexible to some extent),
the flexible nozzle comprising a rubber (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is made up of EPDM);
the flexible nozzle having
a fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a);
a conical fluid swirling chamber (#51a, See Annotated Fig. 8a and Paragraph 0035 disclosing that #51a is inwardly tapering thus it is conical. #51a is configured such that some amount of fluid swirling can occur in #51a, thus #51a can be considered a conical fluid swirling chamber); and
a spray orifice (#51b, See Annotated Fig. 8b and Paragraph 0035);
an nozzle base (See #20a in Fig. 3 and see the nozzle base shown in Annotated Fig. 14-Detail. The nozzle base is a lower portion of #20 that has bead #20a and does not include the stop); and
a cap (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the cap is made up of #30 and #37);
wherein the flexible nozzle is configured to have a plurality of spray patterns (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14, and See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is deformable. Furthermore, when #50 is initially compressed by #20a, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the flexible nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50. Further compressing #50 with #20a will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent. Compressing #50 with #20a to a sealed state will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to another extent.);
wherein the plurality of spray patterns are selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between the cap and the nozzle base (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is initially compressed by #20, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the flexible nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50 in a state that is not fully sealed. Further compressing #50 with #20 will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent in a state that is further sealed, thus multiple spray patterns can be selected from #50 by varying a compression force of #20a on #50).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the sprayer is a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle).
However, Newson discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0001-0003), wherein a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1) is used as an alternative to a vehicle sprayer (See Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 12 above such that it is a hand-held sprayer instead of a vehicle sprayer, as taught by Newson, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the sprayer to be carried by an operator and manually directed over targets being sprayed (See Newson Paragraph 0030 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the fluid inlet is a tangential fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the inlet is in line with the flexible nozzle and is not tangential).
However, Nakamura discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), a sprayer (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (#3 and #4) having a tangential fluid inlet (#1, See Figs. 1-2 and Col. 1 Lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 12 above such that the fluid inlet of Paulsen is a tangential fluid inlet as taught by Nakamura, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating swirling of fluid (See Nakamura Col. 2 Lines 1-5), thus helping obtain stabilized spray conditions (See Nakamura Col. 3 Lines 10-15).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the nozzle base and the cap are movable with respect to one another and wherein they may be moved with respect to one another to compress or uncompress the flexible nozzle (See Fig. 14. And Paragraphs 0031 and 0037. #20 and #37 are connected and disconnected from each other. When #20a is attached to #37, #50 is compressed. When #20a is detached from #37, #50 is uncompressed.).
As to Claim 14, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the rubber has a Shore A hardness of less than 55 (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing EPDM rubber having a shore A hardness of 50).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the flexible nozzle in an uncompressed state provides a first fluid spray pattern and wherein the flexible nozzle in a compressed state provides a second fluid spray pattern (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is not compressed by #20a, a first spray pattern will result when fluid is provided through #50. When #20a compresses #50, fluid will be provided from #20 to #50, and a shape of #50 will be altered to some extent such that the first spray pattern will be altered to some extent, resulting in a second fluid spray pattern).
As to Claim 17, Paulsen discloses a sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle) comprising:
a container (#17);
a pump (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing “suitable pumps”);
a nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the nozzle is made up of #50),
the nozzle having
a fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a);
a conical fluid swirling chamber (#51a, See Annotated Fig. 8a and Paragraph 0035 disclosing that #51a is inwardly tapering thus it is conical. #51a is configured such that some amount of fluid swirling can occur in #51a, thus #51a can be considered a conical fluid swirling chamber); and
a spray orifice (#51b, See Annotated Fig. 8b and Paragraph 0035);
wherein the spray orifice is configured to expand under pressure to allow particulate to pass through the spray orifice and is configured to return to its original shape when the pressure subsides (See Paragraph 0036, the material of #50 is deformable under pressure and returns to its original shape when pressure is removed. Thus #50, including #51b, can expand to allow various types of particulate matter to pass through and return to its original position);
a nozzle base (See #20a in Fig. 3 and see the nozzle base shown in Annotated Fig. 14-Detail. The nozzle base is a lower portion of #20 that has bead #20a and does not include the stop); and
a cap (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the cap is made up of #30 and #37);
wherein the flexible nozzle is configured to have a plurality of spray patterns (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14, and See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is deformable. Furthermore, when #50 is initially compressed by #20a, the nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50. Further compressing #50 with #20a will further alter the shape of the nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent. Compressing #50 with #20a to a sealed state will further alter the shape of the nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to another extent.);
wherein the plurality of spray patterns are selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between the cap and the nozzle base (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is initially compressed by #20, the nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50 in a state that is not fully sealed. Further compressing #50 with #20 will further alter the shape of the nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent in a state that is further sealed, thus multiple spray patterns can be selected from #50 by varying a compression force of #20a on #50).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 17 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the sprayer is a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire sprayer as a vehicle).
However, Newson discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0001-0003), wherein a hand-held sprayer (See Fig. 1) is used as an alternative to a vehicle sprayer (See Paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer of Paulsen as applied to Claim 17 above such that it is a hand-held sprayer instead of a vehicle sprayer, as taught by Newson, since doing so would yield the predictable result of allowing the sprayer to be carried by an operator and manually directed over targets being sprayed (See Newson Paragraph 0030 and Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 17 above, Paulsen does not disclose wherein the fluid inlet is a tangential fluid inlet (See Annotated Fig. 8a, the inlet is in line with the nozzle and is not tangential).
However, Nakamura discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), a sprayer (See Fig. 1) comprising a nozzle (#3 and #4) having a tangential fluid inlet (#1, See Figs. 1-2 and Col. 1 Lines 55-60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson as applied to Claim 17 above such that the fluid inlet of Paulsen is a tangential fluid inlet as taught by Nakamura, since doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating swirling of fluid (See Nakamura Col. 2 Lines 1-5), thus helping obtain stabilized spray conditions (See Nakamura Col. 3 Lines 10-15).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 17 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the nozzle base and the cap are movable with respect to one another and wherein they may be moved with respect to one another to compress or uncompress the nozzle (See Fig. 14. And Paragraphs 0031 and 0037. #20a and #37 are connected and disconnected from each other. When #20a is attached to #37, #50 is compressed. When #20a is detached from #37, #50 is uncompressed.).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 17 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the rubber has a Shore A hardness of less than 55 (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing EPDM rubber having a shore A hardness of 50).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 17 above, Paulsen further discloses wherein the nozzle in an uncompressed state provides a first fluid spray pattern and wherein the nozzle in a compressed state provides a second fluid spray pattern (See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14. When #50 is not compressed by #20a, a first spray pattern will result when fluid is provided through #50. When #20a compresses #50, fluid will be provided from #20 to #50, and a shape of #50 will be altered to some extent such that the first spray pattern will be altered to some extent, resulting in a second fluid spray pattern).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulsen in view of Newson, Nakamura, and Titinet.
Regarding Claim 15, in reference to the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 12 above, Paulsen does not specifically disclose wherein the rubber has a Shore A hardness of less than 45 (See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that the EPDM has a hardness of 50 Shore A).
However, Titinet discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Paragraphs 0002-0004), a sprayer (See Fig. 1) having a flexible nozzle (#40) comprising a rubber (See Paragraph 0024 disclosing that #48 is made of an EPDM compound), that has a Shore A hardness of less than 45 (See Paragraph 0024 disclosing a Shore A hardness as low as 30).
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice per In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hand-held sprayer of Paulsen in view of Newson and Nakamura as applied to Claim 12 above such that the rubber has a Shore A hardness that is less than 45 by using the EPDM compound of Titinet with a hardness of 30 Shore A, since doing so would yield the predictable result of utilizing a suitable flexible nozzle material for spraying applications that can be injection molded (See Titinet Paragraph 0024).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
365
537
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 12, and 17, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted above, applicant argues that Paulsen does not disclose altering a spay pattern by altering the compressive force on a flexible nozzle by a cap and a nozzle base. Applicant states that in Paulsen the only time there would be flow through the nozzle is when the nozzle body #30 has been connected to the liquid inlet stream #20, and that there is no disclosure of different spray patterns based on different compressions of the orifice member #50 by its surrounding parts. Applicant points to Paragraph 0036 of Paulsen which states “the orifice member 50 is made of a deformable resilient material that enables controlled alteration of the central passage 51 and discharge orifice 52 in response to changes in pressure of the supply liquid to the nozzle assembly 11” and argues that Paulsen does not teach or disclose a flexible nozzle configured to have a plurality of spray patterns with the plurality of spray patterns being selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between the cap and the nozzle base as now claimed.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, when the prior art fails to disclose a functional limitation, the examiner may be able to rely on the theory of inherency. In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art. See: MPEP §2112 IV; Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Paulsen discloses wherein the flexible nozzle #50 is configured to have a plurality of spray patterns and wherein the plurality of spray patterns are selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between the cap made up of #30 and #37 and the nozzle base that is #20a. See Fig. 8a and Fig. 14 and of Paulsen, and See Paragraph 0036 disclosing that #50 is deformable. Independent of any deformation that occurs at #50 due to fluid force, when #50 is initially compressed by #20a, the flexible nozzle will alter shape to some extent thus altering a spray pattern of fluid through the flexible nozzle at least to some extent as fluid flows from #20 through #50 when in a non-sealed state. Further compressing #50 with #20a will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to some further extent in a further-sealed state. Compressing #50 with #20a to a sealed state will further alter the shape of the flexible nozzle and thus further alter a flow path and spray pattern of fluid to another extent. Thus multiple spray patterns can be selected from #50 by varying a compression force of #20a on #50 over various states that are between an unattached uncompressed state, various partially attached and partially compressed states, and a sealed compressed state. Therefore, the disclosure of Paulsen reads on a broadest reasonable interpretation of the newly presented functional limitations in independent Claims 1, 12, and 17, and Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PGPUB 2003/0062426 A1 to Gregory et al. discloses a sprayer shown in Figs. 12a-12b comprising a flexible nozzle #140 that is configured to have a plurality of spray patterns that can be selected by varying a compression force on the flexible nozzle that is generated between a cap #200 and a nozzle base #250 (See Figs. 12a-12b and Paragraphs 0127-0135, the shape of #150 and thus a spray pattern from #150 changes depending on what compression force is applied between #200 and #250).
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 KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 March 2, 2026