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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claim 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 5 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.
Claim 5 recites the flat fan pattern has a 65 to 110 degree angle but it is not clear what this angle is relative to because this is never specified. This could be an edge of the spray relative to a central line, or the edges relative to each other, or something else entirely. For example, if relative to a central line, the spray may be 45 degrees, but if relative to each edge, the same spray could be 90 degrees. Examiner assumes the angle is relative to each of the outer edges of the spray.
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, 2, 4-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (US 2021/0123240).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Yu et al. teaches an applicator for an adhesive primer (See Abstract and page 1, paragraph [0003], teaching a sprayer system, i.e. applicator, for spraying fluids such as adhesives; and note the sprayed material is not part of the applicator and it would have been apparent adhesives and adhesives primers are essentially identical and use dependent) comprising:
a tank [110] configured to hold the adhesive primer (See page 3, paragraph [0035] and Fig. 1A, teaching a container [110], which is a tank as claimed);
a peristaltic pump [150] comprising an inlet [156A] and an outlet [156B] (See page 3, paragraph [0036] and Fig. 1B, teaching a peristaltic pump [150] wherein fluid enter in a tube, i.e. the inlet, and then exists through a tube, i.e. outlet);
a spray nozzle [130]; wherein a first conduit extends from an interior of the tank [110] to the inlet of the peristaltic pump [150]; and wherein a second conduit extends from the outlet of the peristaltic pump [150] to the spray nozzle [130] (See page 3, paragraph [0035], 4, paragraph [0038] and Fig. 1A, wherein tube [140], i.e. conduit, extends from container [110] to peristaltic pump [156], i.e. forming the first conduit as claimed, and the peristaltic pump [156] to the spray gun or nozzle [130], i.e. forming the second conduit as claimed as a continuous conduit).
Regarding Claim 2, Yu et al. teaches a cart [112] with three wheels supporting the spray application system, which includes the container [110] and spray nozzle [130] (See page 3, paragraph [0035], and note any support framework of the cart is a base as claimed).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Yu et al. teaches a fan pattern for an elongated elliptical opening in contrast to a circular pattern (See page 5, paragraph [0042]), this being interpreted as a flat fan pattern as claimed. Note a fan spray implies a wide distribution making angles of 65-110 degrees implicit in the teaching, but at the very least rending this range obvious as a way to direct coating area and coverage density of the spray as desired with wider spraying covering more area but providing less coating density.
Regarding Claim 9, Yu et al. teaches the system, and thus nozzle, configured to spray at 0.5 to 1 gallon per minute (GPM) (See page 4, paragraph [0039]).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Buijsman (US 2015/0202661) and Gardner et al. (US 2009/0223541).
Regarding Claim 3, Yu et al. teach the device of Claim 1 as described above. Yu et al. fails to teach a wand as claimed. However, wands are well-known for similar adhesive spraying of surface so as to enable the nozzle to be away from the operator (See, for example, Buijsman, page 2, paragraph [0021], page 3, paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and Fig. 2), and connecting said wands to the base on wheels is well-known to secure the wand nozzle for use (See, for example, Gardner et al., page 3, paragraphs [0033]-[0034] and Figs. 1-3, wherein a wand [28] for spraying is releasably secured to a base on wheels via cylinder [168]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the spray nozzle of as a handheld wand and detachably secure the wand in the base. Doing so would have predictably enabled the spray nozzle in Yu et al. to spray further from a user while securely storing it within the cart for use.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Fontaine (US 2015/0219087).
Regarding Claim 7, Yu et al. teach the device of Claim 1 as described above. Yu et al. teaches a continuous tube as described for claim 6. However, is well-known to provide separate tube for peristaltic pumps, connected to inlet and outlet tube conduits, in spraying devices to provide specific tube properties in pump, removability, or replaceability in the tube (See, for example, Fontaine, pages 3, paragraphs [0033]-[0037] and Figs. 4 and 7, teaching inlet hoses [66],[68] and outlet hoses [78],[82] connected to pump tube [102] in a peristaltic pump). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having oridinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a separate pump tube in Yu et al. connected to an inlet tube and outlet tube, as opposed to continuous tube [140]. Doing so would have predictably been a suitable alternative to a continuous tube by providing similar operational function while allowing specific tube properties for pump function and removability. Further note integral and separate pieces performing the same function is generally not considered inventive, but is considered an obvious engineering choice that is not grounds for patentability. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, “that the use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 5,794,825).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu et al. teach the device of Claim 1 as described above. Yu et al. teaches a continuous tube [140] for supplying adhesive as described for claim 6, but is silent as to material. However, any known tubing material used in adhesive transport would have predictably been suitable. Polyethylene tubing is a well-known tubing material utilized for applications such as adhesive transport to a coating head (See, for example, Gordon et al., Abstract and col. 5, lines 25-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize polyethylene as a tubing material in Yu et al. This material is well-known tubing and known to be suitable to transport adhesive to a coating head.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Piatt et al. (US 2006/0208112) and Didlo (US 6,679,438).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu et al. teach the device of Claim 1 as described above. Yu et al. fails to teach a wind guard as claimed. However, wind guards are well-known in spraying to shield a spraying head from environmental conditions, wherein these wind guards are known be in cone shapes, to partially surround the nozzle as an alternative to fully surrounding, and desirably provide viewing access to the nozzle (See, for example, Piatt et al., pages 3-4, paragraph [0035] and page 4, paragraph [0037], teaching a transparent or opaque shroud/guard that “surrounds or partially surrounds the nozzle” so that “the spray is shielded during application on a target…under windy conditions;” and Didlo, col. 1, lines 35-44, col. 3, lines 21-26 and lines 39-41, a conical guard to prevent spraying drift in windy condition configured so “the user can view the area enclosed by the conical shield when applying the spray”). This suggest varying configurations of wind guards are known including opaque, transparent, conical, full or partial surrounding, and providing viewing access. Any combinations of these known guards would have predictably been suitable to shield a spray from wind during spraying such as in Yu et al. while providing viewing access Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a partial conical wall having a cutout for viewing. Both conical walls and partially surround walls are known in wind guard making their combination obvious especially where opaque guard materials are desired. Since viewing the spray is known to be desirable, it would have been obvious to structure the partial conical wall such that the non-surrounding portion provides viewing access. Doing so would have predictably provided suitable wind guarding, since partially surrounding guard and conical guards are known to be suitable for this, while providing adequate viewing access of the nozzle as is desired, when using opaque materials.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights