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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 5/19/2026 after a final rejection was mailed 3/23/2026. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The response filed on May 19, 2026 is acknowledged. Seven pages of amended claims were received on 5/19/2026. Independent Claims 1 and 53-56 have been amended. Claims 5 and 56 are now objected to as noted below and Claims 53-54 and 56 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as noted below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 56 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 5 Line 4, “the portable fluid sprayer” should be revised to “a portable fluid sprayer” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 56 Line 12, “the portable fluid sprayer” should be revised to “a portable fluid sprayer” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 53-54 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 1,961,481 to Downs (“Downs”).
As to Claim 53, Downs discloses a tube dampener for fluid spraying (See Fig. 2), the tube dampener comprising:
a dampener body (See B in Annotated Fig. 2, which is made up of a combination of components spanning from W1 to W2) elongate along a flow axis (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and having an interior space (See S in Annotated Fig. 2, which is space within B between W1 and W2), the interior space extending between a first wall at an upstream end of the dampener body (See W1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and a second wall at a downstream end of the dampener body (See W2 in Annotated Fig. 2);
a flexible tube (#21, which is made of a material such that it is flexible to some extent) disposed within the interior space such that a gap is disposed circumferentially around the flexible tube and radially between the flexible tube and the dampener body (See G in Annotated Fig. 2), the flexible tube formed such that the flexible tube can flex in response to pressure pulsations of spray fluid flowing through the flexible tube (See Col. 2 Lines 35-40. Fluid flows through #21 such that the tube can flex to some extent when pulsed spray flows through #21); and
a restriction disposed downstream of the flexible tube to inhibit free flow of the spray fluid out of the flexible tube (See R in Annotated Fig. which is restricted relative to an upstream section and is capable of inhibiting free flow of fluid out of #21 to some extent);
wherein an axial length of the flexible tube is less than an axial length of the interior space between a side of the first wall oriented towards the interior space and a side of the second wall oriented towards the interior space (See Annotated Fig. 2, the tube #21 is shorter than a length between W1 and W2).
As to Claim 54, Downs discloses a tube dampener for fluid spraying (See Fig. 2), the tube dampener comprising:
a dampener body (See B in Annotated Fig. 2, which is made up of a combination of components spanning from W1 to W2) elongate along a flow axis (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and having an interior space (See S in Annotated Fig. 2, which is space within B between W1 and W2), the interior space extending between a first wall at an upstream end of the dampener body (See W1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and a second wall at a downstream end of the dampener body (See W2 in Annotated Fig. 2);
a flexible tube (#21, which is made of a material such that it is flexible to some extent) disposed within the interior space such that a gap is disposed circumferentially around the flexible tube and radially between the flexible tube and the dampener body (See G in Annotated Fig. 2), the flexible tube formed such that the flexible tube can flex in response to pressure pulsations of spray fluid flowing through the flexible tube (See Col. 2 Lines 35-40. Fluid flows through #21 such that the tube can flex to some extent when pulsed spray flows through #21); and
a first fitting connected to the flexible tube (#9, See F1 in Annotated Fig. 2);
a second fitting connected to the flexible tube (#24, See F2 in Annotated Fig. 2); and
a restriction disposed downstream of the flexible tube to inhibit free flow of the spray fluid out of the flexible tube (See R in Annotated Fig. which is restricted relative to an upstream section and is capable of inhibiting free flow of fluid out of #21 to some extent);
wherein an end of the first fitting connected to the flexible tube is spaced away from an end of the second fitting connected to the flexible tube along the flow axis (See Annotated Fig. 2, F1 and F2 are separate from each other on opposite ends of B), and the flexible tube spans between the end of the first fitting and the end of the second fitting (See Annotated Fig. 2, #21 extends from F1 to F2), wherein at least a portion of the flexible tube between the first fitting and the second fitting is unsupported (See P in Annotated Fig. 2, which is a major portion of #21 and is not supported within B).
As to Claim 56, Downs discloses a tube dampener for fluid spraying (See Fig. 2), the tube dampener comprising:
a dampener body (#17) elongate along a flow axis (See axis A1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and having an interior space (See S in Annotated Fig. 2, which is space within B between W1 and W2), the interior space extending between a first wall at an upstream end of the dampener body (See W1 in Annotated Fig. 2) and a second wall at a downstream end of the dampener body (See W2 in Annotated Fig. 2);
a flexible tube (#21, which is made of a material such that it is flexible to some extent) disposed within the interior space such that a gap is disposed circumferentially around the flexible tube and radially between the flexible tube and the dampener body (See G in Annotated Fig. 2), the flexible tube formed such that the flexible tube can flex in response to pressure pulsations of spray fluid flowing through the flexible tube (See Col. 2 Lines 35-40. Fluid flows through #21 such that the tube can flex to some extent when pulsed spray flows through #21); and
a restriction disposed downstream of the flexible tube to inhibit free flow of the spray fluid out of the flexible tube (See R in Annotated Fig. which is restricted relative to an upstream section and is capable of inhibiting free flow of fluid out of #21 to some extent);
a mount disposed at an upstream end of the dampener body (#8, See M in Annotated Fig. 2, which mounts unto F1), the mount configured to connect the dampener body to the portable fluid sprayer (See Annotated Fig. 2 the mount is M capable of connecting B to some portable fluid sprayer), and the mount including a projection that extends in an upstream direction away from the flexible tube (See J in Annotated Fig. 2), the projection configured to extend into a valve housing of the portable fluid sprayer to unseat a valve of the portable fluid sprayer (See Annotated Fig. 2, the projection J is constructed such that it is capable of attaching to some valve housing of some portable fluid sprayer to unset a valve of some portable sprayer. The portable sprayer is not positively recited in the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
615
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14, 16-19, 21, and 55-56 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 1: “an inner support that extends into the interior space and interfaces with an exterior of the flexible tube to support a span of the flexible tube, the inner support interfacing with the flexible tube such that the flexible tube has a first unsupported length between the first tube end and the inner support and the flexible tube has a second unsupported length between the second tube end and the inner support”.
As to Claim 1, the prior art of EP-0656503-B1 to Brunner (“Brunner”) discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for fluid spraying (See Fig. 1 showing the entire fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012), the tube dampener comprising:
a dampener body (See DB in Annotated Fig. 1-C1) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-C1) and having an interior space (#48);
a flexible tube (#44, See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0013 disclosing that #44 is made of elastic rubber, thus #44 is flexible to some extent) disposed within the interior space such that a gap is disposed circumferentially around the flexible tube and radially between the flexible tube and the dampener body (See gap G in Annotated Fig. 1-C1), the flexible tube formed such that the flexible tube can flex in response to pressure pulsations of spray fluid flowing through the flexible tube (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0016), the flexible tube extending between a first tube end (See TE1 in Annotated Fig. 1-C1) and a second tube end (See TE2 in Annotated Fig. 1-C1); and
a restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-C1, the restriction R is a valve assembly made up of #18, #22, and #24) disposed downstream of the flexible tube to inhibit free flow of the spray fluid out of the flexible tube (See Annotated Fig. 1-C1 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0012 and 0016).
Regarding Claim 1, Brunner does not disclose the tube dampener comprising an inner support that extends into the interior space and interfaces with an exterior of the flexible tube to support a span of the flexible tube, the inner support interfacing with the flexible tube such that the flexible tube has a first unsupported length between the first tube end and the inner support and the flexible tube has a second unsupported length between the second tube end and the inner support (See an inner support #42 in Fig. 1 that interfaces with an interior of #44 and supports an entire length of #44).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the tube dampener of Brunner as applied to Claim 1 above such that it comprises an inner support that extends into the interior space and interfaces with an exterior of the flexible tube to support a span of the flexible tube, the inner support interfacing with the flexible tube such that the flexible tube has a first unsupported length between the first tube end and the inner support and the flexible tube has a second unsupported length between the second tube end and the inner support as required by Claim 1, as there is no apparent benefit to making such a modification and making such a modification would change the overall functionality of the tube dampener of Brunner, which has fluid flow through holes #46 in #42 to expand #44 while #42 fully supports #44. Furthermore, there is no prior teaching in Brunner or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Claims 2-14 and 16-19 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 2-14 and 16-19 are also allowed.
PNG
media_image2.png
659
760
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art also fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 55: wherein “an outer diameter of the flexible tube is larger than a diameter of the first opening and the outer diameter is larger than a diameter of the second opening”.
As to Claim 55, the prior art of Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for fluid spraying (See Fig. 1 showing the entire fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012), the tube dampener comprising:
a dampener body (See DB in Annotated Fig. 1-C55) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-C55) and having an interior space (#48);
a flexible tube (#44, See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0013 disclosing that #44 is made of elastic rubber, thus #44 is flexible to some extent) disposed within the interior space such that a gap is disposed circumferentially around the flexible tube and radially between the flexible tube and the dampener body (See gap G in Annotated Fig. 1-C55), the flexible tube formed such that the flexible tube can flex in response to pressure pulsations of spray fluid flowing through the flexible tube (See Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0016); and
a first fitting (#14) mounted to an upstream end of the flexible tube and supporting the flexible tube within the interior space (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55), the first fitting at least partially disposed in a first opening in a first wall at a downstream end of the dampener body (See O1 in Annotated Fig. 1-C55);
a second fitting (See F2 in Annotated Fig. 1-C55 which is a portion of #42) mounted to a downstream end of the flexible tube and supporting the flexible tube within the interior space (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55), the second fitting at least partially disposed in a second opening in a second wall at an upstream end of the dampener body (See O-2 in Annotated Fig. 1-C55); and
a restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55, the restriction R is a valve assembly made up of #18, #22, and #24) disposed downstream of the flexible tube to inhibit free flow of the spray fluid out of the flexible tube (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55 and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0012 and 0016);
wherein the flexible tube is disposed between the first wall and the second wall, the interior space is formed between the first wall and the second wall (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55).
Regarding Claim 55, Brunner does not teach wherein an outer diameter of the flexible tube is larger than a diameter of the first opening and the outer diameter is larger than a diameter of the second opening (See Annotated Fig. 1-C55, the first opening O1 and the second opening O2 both have larger diameters than the hose #44).
One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the tube dampener of Brunner as applied to Claim 55 above such that an outer diameter of the flexible tube is larger than a diameter of the first opening and the outer diameter is larger than a diameter of the second opening as required by Claim 55, as there is no apparent benefit to making such a modification and there is no prior teaching in Brunner or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
PNG
media_image3.png
659
760
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 21: “wherein the projection extends into the valve housing and contacts the valve to unseat the valve”.
Regarding Claim 21, in reference to the tube dampener of Downs as applied to Claim 56 above, Downs discloses a portable fluid sprayer comprising the tube dampener (See Fig. 1). However, Downs does not disclose wherein the projection extends into a valve housing and contacts the valve to unseat the valve (See Annotated Fig. 2, the projection does not extend into a valve housing. The valve housing in Claim 56 was not positively recited, however in Claim 21 the valve housing is positively recited). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the portable fluid sprayer of Downs such that the projection extends into a valve housing and contacts a valve to unseat the valve as required by Claim 21, as making such a modification would require changing the overall configuration of the portable sprayer of Downs and there is no prior teaching in Downs or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 53 and 54 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights