Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/564,930

PORTABLE FLUID SPRAYER HAVING A TUBE DAMPENER

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Nov 28, 2023
Examiner
SCHWARTZ, KEVIN EDWARD
Art Unit
3752
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Graco Minnesota Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
52%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 52% of resolved cases
52%
Career Allow Rate
105 granted / 201 resolved
-17.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+39.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
253
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
20.6%
-19.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 201 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Seven pages of amended claims were received on 2/5/2026. Claims 1, 5-7, 16, and 21 have been amended, Claim 15 has been cancelled, and Claims 53-56 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous claim objections, previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection mailed 1/8/2026. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP-0656503-B1 to Brunner et al (“Brunner”). As to Claim 53, Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for use in a portable fluid sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire portable fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 and is at least capable of being moved to different spots and is thus portable), the tube dampener comprising: a dampener body (See Annotated Fig. 1-A, the dampener body includes #10 and the end caps C1 and C2 that have end walls W1 and W2) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-A) and having an interior space (See Annotated Fig. 1, the interior space includes #48 and space within the end caps C1 and C2), the interior space extending between a first wall at an upstream end of the dampener body (See W1 in Annotated Fig. 1-A) and a second wall at a downstream end of the dampener body (See W2 in Annotated Fig. 1-A); 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 G in Annotated Fig. 1-A), 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 restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-A, 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-B and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0012 and 0016); wherein an axial length of the flexible tube is less than an axial length of the interior space between the first wall and the second wall (See Annotated Fig. 1-A, the length L1 of the flexible tube is less than the length L2 of the interior space that travels between W1 and W2). PNG media_image1.png 659 760 media_image1.png Greyscale As to Claim 54, Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for use in a portable fluid sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire portable fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 and is at least capable of being moved to different spots and is thus portable), the tube dampener comprising: a dampener body (#10) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-B) 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 G in Annotated Fig. 1-A), 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); a first fitting (#14) extending into an upstream end of the flexible tube and supporting the flexible tube within the interior space (See Annotated Fig. 1-B); a second fitting (#44) extending into a downstream end of the flexible tube and supporting the flexible tube within the interior space (See Annotated Fig. 1-B); and a restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-A, 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-B and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0012 and 0016); wherein an end of the first fitting within the flexible tube (See E1 in Annotated Fig. 1-B) is spaced away from an end of the second fitting within the flexible tube along the flow axis (See E2 in Annotated Fig. 1-B), and the flexible tube spans between the end of the first fitting and the end of the second fitting (See Annotated Fig. 1-B). PNG media_image2.png 659 760 media_image2.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 closest prior art of record of Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for use in a portable fluid sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire portable fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 and is at least capable of being moved to different spots and is thus portable), the tube dampener comprising: a dampener body (See DB in Annotated Fig. 1-C) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-C) 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-C), 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-C) and a second tube end (See TE2 in Annotated Fig. 1-C); and a restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-C, 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-C 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_image3.png 659 760 media_image3.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 closest prior art of record of Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for use in a portable fluid sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire portable fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 and is at least capable of being moved to different spots and is thus portable), the tube dampener comprising: a dampener body (See DB in Annotated Fig. 1-D) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-D) 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-D), 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-D), 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-D); a second fitting (See F2 in Annotated Fig. 1-D 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-D), 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-D); and a restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-D, 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-D 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-D). 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-D, 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_image4.png 659 760 media_image4.png Greyscale The prior art also fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in independent Claim 56: “a projection that extends in an upstream direction away from the flexible tube, the projection configured to extend into a valve housing of the portable fluid sprayer to unseat a valve of the portable fluid sprayer”. As to Claim 56, Brunner discloses a tube dampener (See Fig. 1, the tube dampener is made up of all components other than #38) for use in a portable fluid sprayer (See Fig. 1 showing the entire portable fluid sprayer, which sprays water Per Machine Translation of Description Paragraph 0012 and is at least capable of being moved to different spots and is thus portable), the tube dampener comprising: a dampener body (See DB in Annotated Fig. 1-D) elongate along a flow axis (See A1 in Annotated Fig. 1-E) 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-E), 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 restriction (See Annotated Fig. 1-E, 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-E and Machine Translation of Description Paragraphs 0012 and 0016); and a mount (#14) disposed at an upstream end of the dampener body, the mount configured to connect the dampener body to the portable fluid sprayer (See Annotated Fig. 1-E, the mount #14 connects DB to #38 of the portable fluid sprayer). Regarding Claim 56, Brunner does not disclose the mount including a projection that extends in an upstream direction away from the flexible tube, 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. 1-E, the mount #14 connects to #38 but does not extend into a valve housing to unseat a valve). 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 56 above such that the mount includes a projection that extends in an upstream direction away from the flexible tube, the projection configured to extend into a valve housing of the portable fluid sprayer to unseat a valve of the portable fluid sprayer as required by Claim 56, as the portable fluid sprayer of Brunner already has a valve at #18 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. Claim 21 depends from Claim 56, therefore Claim 21 is also allowed. PNG media_image5.png 659 760 media_image5.png Greyscale 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. 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 18, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 22, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 29, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 29, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12564855
HIGH PRESSURE NOZZLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12544775
DISPENSING NOZZLE HAVING A TUBULAR EXIT ZONE COMPRISING VANES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12533688
SYSTEM AND METHOD OF ATOMIZING REACTIVE TWO-PART FLUIDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12515229
INJECTION VALVE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12508605
HANDHELD WATER SPRAYER
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
52%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+39.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 201 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month